








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/studiesinmenandeOOwrigrich 


STUDIES IN MENANDER 


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF 
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 


IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 


DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
(DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS) 


BY 
F. WARREN WRIGHT 


1910 


THE WAVERLY PRESS 
WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY 
Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. 

1911 








7 bd i 1m 4) Ant 
eri bihaih. * PLS y 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 


CHAPTER I. OatTHs IN MENANDER. = : = = = = Tee 


By the gods collectively 3—Amplificatio 7—mpos (trav) Bewv 9—rpos 
feav kal daruovwy 10—Vocative formulae 10—By the Twelve Gods 10—@ 
qwoAvintor Oeot 11—By Athena 13—By Apollo 16—By Asclepius 21— 
By Aphrodite 22—By Gé 23—By Demeter 25—By the Two Goddesses 
28—By Dionysus 29—By Zeus 31—By Helios 39—By Heracles 42—By 
Hephaestus 46—By Poseidon 47—Elliptical oaths 49—Uncertain oaths 
53—Other oaths 53—Summary 53—Tabular view of the oaths used by 
different sexes and classes 54—Oaths in Menander, Aristophanes, and 
other writers of comedy, Greek and Latin 55. 


CuHapTerR II. Mures anp Liquips. = = = 2 = - 56 


Apparent shortening before 8A 57—Apparent lengthening before Bp 
59—xu 60—xv 61—xp 61—7\ 62—rp 62—dp 63—xu 64—xp 64— Con- 
clusion 65. 


CHAPTER III]. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE Metri Causa. - - 68 


With proper names 69—With (raves) G@v@pwror 70—In oaths 71— 
With 6eds 72—In prepositional phrases 72—Denoting possession with 
nouns of relationship 74—With kxextnuévn and deororns 76—With sub- 
stantives in the predicate 77—With the second of two coordinated sub- 
stantives 79—(rn) pice, (Tw) Biw, (Tw) yever, (6) Tporos 80—With 
oikia 82—In exclamatory monologue (E. 171) 82—éav yap evpeOn Tarpos 
<> Kopy (E. 351) 82—T@ Ady (S. 289) 83—abAetos Ppa (546.2 K.) 84. 


CHAPTER IV. ASYNDETON. - = = = = = = = 90 


Demetrius Phalereus on the style of Menander and Philemon 85— 
Asyndeton defined 86—Apparent asyndeton 87—Logical result 87,—2nd 
clause imperative 87—Summation or conclusion 88, indicated by demon- 
strative 88, demonstrative expressing mere sequence 89—In explanatory 
clause 89, which also illustrates 90, aphorism as explanation 90, explana- 
tion anticipated by demonstrative 90, by noun 91, summarizing demon- 
strative in explanatory clause 91, explanation of motive of question 91, 
rhetorical question serving as explanation 92, Ist clause imperative 92, 
exclamation 92, H.3, 8.238, Pk. 108 p. 93—Amplification 93—Repetition 
of another’s words 93—Anaphora 94—Contrast 95—New subject 95, 


ili 


1V 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


clause beginning with wev 95, extended argument wey omitted 95, paren- 
thetic and interrupted speech 96, change of person addressed 97, im- 
peratives 98, prayers, curses, exclamations 99, soliloquy and rapid 
monologue 99, finite verb of saying introduces answer to question 100— 
Real Asyndeton 100—Lively narration and description 100—Asyndeton 
enumerativum 101—Climax 102—Contrast 103—Questions 104—Excited 
soliloquy and dialogue 104, suggesting details 104, with anaphora 105— 
Asyndetie use of participles 105—Apparent 105, Ist agreeing with sub- 
ject, 2nd complementary to predicate 105, logical subordination 106— 
Real 107, participles giving details 107—E. 301 p. 108—Conclusion, the 
dramatic effect of asyndeton 109. 


FOREWORD. 


The recovery of a long-lost classic, like the rediscovery of a periodic 
comet, affords opportunity for the testing of old observations and the 
reéxamination of cherished theories. I have ventured to present these 
STUDIES IN MENANDER because of a belief that the comedies of this great 
and renowned ancient, so happily recovered, though in fragmentary 
form, have much of permanent interest to teach the student of clas- 
sical philology. 

Chapter I, pp. 1-55, on the Oaths in Menander, is offered princi- 
pally as a contribution to the study of Greek religion. Chapters II, 
pp. 56-67, on Mutes and Liquids, III, pp. 68-84, on Omission of the 
Article Metri Causa, and IV, pp. 85-109, on Asyndeton, deal chiefly 
with matters of prosody, of syntax, and of poetic and dramatic style, 
both of Menander and his great rivals. In all these cases, the possession 
of new evidence is the sole justification for the re-opening of supposedly 
long-settled questions. 

The fragments of the “old”? Menander are cited in the numbering of 
Kock, CAF; those of the “new,” in the abbreviations and numbering of 
Korte, Menandrea, Leipzig (1910). I have not hesitated, however, to 
follow other editors when convinced that the readings of Kock and 
Korte are wrong, endeavoring to indicate all such variations as affect 
the argument. I have sought to incorporate all important changes 
in the text, due to Jensen’s collation of the Cairo MS., Rh. Mus. 
LXV (1910), 539-577, which reached me when this was in proof. In 
the citation of periodical literature, all modifications of the abbrevia- 
tions adopted in the Bibliotheca philologica classica are in the interest 
of clearness. 

Acknowledgment must be made to Otto Hense, to whose suggestions 
in critical reviews in the Berliner philologische Wochenschrift are directly 
due two of these Srupi&s, and to the late Prof. S. R. Winans of Prince- 
ton, who read this thesis in manuscript. But above all I must acknowl- 
edge my indebtedness to Prof. Edward Capps of Princeton, at whose 
suggestion this work was undertaken, and to whose constant criticism 
while the work was in manuscript and in proof its completion is in no 


Vv 


224682 


vi FOREWORD 


small measure due. For his kindness in furnishing me my first adequate 
text in the form of advance pages of his Four Plays of Menander, Boston 
(1910), I am under especial obligation. 

I desire to take this opportunity of extending to my several instruc- 
tors in Wesleyan, Harvard, and Princeton Universities, a grateful stu- 
dent’s thanks for inspiration and guidance in his classical studies. 


F. WARREN WRIGHT. 


Bryn Mawr College, 
March 1, 1911. 


Copies of this dissertation may be obtained on application to 
the author. The price for each copy is one dollar, which includes 
postage. 


CHAPTER I. 


OATHS IN MENANDER. 


The new fragments of Menander, together with those already known 
in the collections of Meineke and Kock, give us a considerable body of 
oaths drawn from the speech of the common people. The following 
chapter on the Oaths in Menander may serve, therefore, as a supplement 
to the excellent studies on the oaths of the Greeks which have already 
been made! in that portion of Greek literature which gives us the speech 
of private life, viz., comedy, dialogue, the mimes of Herondas, and, 
to a certain extent, oratory. 

In dealing with Greek oaths, it is important to remember that the gods 
were very real beings to the Greeks, comparable to the saints of the 
Christian church among Catholic peoples. Whenever a Greek swore, 
he was calling upon some particular god who might be conceived as 
having some especial interest in his case. In time, of course, as with us, 
many of these oaths, especially those most frequently used, lost their 
significance as invocations of a helping or witnessing deity and became 
merely conventional exclamations. But apart from these few, every 
oath must have had its especial significance and especial appropriate- 
ness as used by each individual speaker on each individual occasion. 


1 Heumann, De dignitate iurisiurandi apud veteres, praesertim apud Graecos, ind. 
lect. Recklinghausen (1831-32); Lasaulx, Der Eid bei den Griechen, ind. lect. 
Wiirtzburg (1844); Schroder, De praecisis ‘urandi formis Graecorum et Romanorum, 
Jahresb. vom kgl. Gym. zu Marienwerder (1845); Nagelsbach, Die nachhomer. 
Theologie, Niirnberg (1857), 241 ff.; Schroder, De Graecorum iuramentis interiective 
positis, Jahresb. vom kgl. Gym. zu Marienwerder (1859); Nagelsbach, Homer. 
Theologie?, Niirnberg (1861), 230 ff.; Bachmann, Conjecturarum observationumque 
Arisophanearum specimen I, diss. G6ttingen (1878), 62 ff., 145 ff.; Bauck, De 
proverbiis aliisque locutionibus ex usu vitae communis petitis apud Aristophanem 
comicum, diss. Kénigsberg (1880), 6f.; Kiihnlein, De vt et usu precandi et iurandi 
formularum apud decem oratores Atticos, progr. v. Neustadt a. d. H. (1882); L. 
Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, Berlin (1882), I 88 f., II 3 ff.; Hofmann, 
De iurandi apud Athenienses formulis, Strassb. diss., Darmstadt (1886, dated 1880) ; 
Martin, Quomodo Graeci ac peculiariter Athenienses foedera publica tureiurando 
sanzerint, Paris (1886); Rehdantz, Index z. Demos. neun philippische Reden', 


1 


fete e,¢ 


2 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Unfortunately, our knowledge of Greek religion, especially of the act- 
ual belief of the common people, is still incomplete in many respects. It 
is not possible, therefore, to be certain in every instance as to what aspect 
of the deity was in the mind of the user of any particular oath. I have 
attempted, however, to suggest possible explanat-ons of the oaths in 
Menander, wherever a study of the worship of the god invoked has fur- 
nished a clue to the intention of the person who calle 1 upon his name.? 
I am aware that certain of my explanations may appear trivial or over- 
elaborate, if considered by themselves. Perhaps in many cases the user 
of the oath himself could not have given a definite answer, if questioned, 
as to his reason for swearing by a particular god rather than by another. 
However, every oath must have had a certain foundat‘on in current 
religious belief and a certain appropriateness in the given situation. I 
have therefore endeavored to ascertain as far as possible the underlying 
motives in the case of each oath. 

Such matters as have been thoroughly treated by my predecessors 
and are now a part of common knowledge, as for example, the meaning 
of the particular formulae of swearing, it is unnecessary to discuss again, 
except where some discussion seems necessary for the elucidation of a 
particular passage in Menander. As to the formulae of swearing and 
the formulae of invocation, especially the vocative forms of the name of 
the god, with or without the particle 4, it is difficult in every case to 


Leipzig (1886), s.v. Schwurformeln, 132 f.; Sittl, Die Gebdérden der Griechen u. 
Romer, Leipzig (1890), 138 ff.; Meinhardt, De forma et usu ituramentorum, quae 
inveniuntur in comic. Gr. et Platonis, Xenophontis, Luciani sermone, diss. Jena 
(1892); Ziebarth, De iureiurando iniure Graeco quaestiones, diss. Géttingen (1892); 
Dummler, Delphika, Untersuchungen z. gr. Religionsgesch., progr. Basel (1894), 
5-16; L. Ott, Beitrdge zur Kenntniss des gr. Fides, diss. Leipzig (1896); Stengel, 
Kultusaltertiimer in Miiller’s Hdb. V. 3 (1898), 78 ff.; Wenger, Der Hid in den gr. 
Papyrusurkunden, Zeitschrift d. Savignystiftung d. Rechtsgesch. XXIII (1902), 
158-274; Hirzel, Der Eid, ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte, Leipzig (1902); Schomann- 
Lipsius, Gr. Altertiimer, Berlin, II* (1902), 274-284; Usener, Die Dretheit, RhMus. 
LVIII (1903), 1-47, 161-208, 321-361, esp. 17-29; Ziebarth, s.v. Hid in Pauly-Wissowa, 
Encyklopddie V (1905) 2076 f.; Meier-Schémann-Lipsius, Die attische Recht uw. 
Rechtsverfahren (1905-08), passim, esp. 151 ff.; Selvers, De mediae comoediae 
sermone, diss. Westphalia (1909), 60 ff. Setti, Museo Italiano di antichita classica, 
I 113-130, Il linguaccio dell’uso comune presso Aristofane (1884), has not been 
available to me. 

2 In the making of books on Greek religion there seems to be no end. The ap- 
pended bibliography therefore might be indefinitely extended. Much of the ancient 
evidence for the major deities will be found conveniently arranged in Farnell, 
The Cults of the Greek States. 


OATHS 2 


draw a distinction. I have preferred to err by including too much rather 
than by including too little. Curses, of which our poet furnishes some 
interesting examples, are not considered, though they are closely allied 
to oaths. 

The method of presentation that I have adopted is as follows: First of 
all, the oaths are classified according to the god or gods invoked. Under 
each god are quoted the passages in which the oath occurs, with a brief 
statement of the class to which the speaker belongs, using the categories 
applied to the dramatis personae of Latin comedy, together with a mere 
hint as to context. After the instances there follows a discussion of the 
nature of the worship of the god concerned, especially at Athens, with 
a few supplementary statements of general interest concerning the usage 
of the particular oath, especially if a rare oath, in the larger body of 
Greek literature. Where such treatment is possible, each section con- 
cludes with a discussion of the individual passages in Menander. Fol- 
lowing the oaths by the gods will be found a discussion of the oaths in 
which the name of the god is omitted; then a tabular view, with brief 
comments, of the different classes of oaths according to the categories 
of sex and réle already mentioned; and, lastly, a brief comparison of 
the list of oaths in Menander, with those found in other writers. 


OATHS BY THE GODS COLLECTIVELY. 


Je 1749) “'Arro\Nov Kal Geol, dervov KaKov. 
rs 


Servus Syriscus is indignant at Onesimus. 


Pk. 448 @ In [kal Oeoi! 
Adulescens Moschion (ef. p. 24), in surprise. 


893 Kk adr’ “Hoakrerdes? Kal Geol. 
Unknown speaker. 


S. 220 ovdemwmor’ Eis ToLaUTHY EuTTETwWY, Ma TOUS DeEots, 
oida Tapaxny. 


Senex Demeas tells of his troubles. 


1 G.-H. & yn [@tATaTn]| Dziatz. is improbable, for it is properly the ery of are- 
turning traveller; cf. 18. 1 Ix., 349. 1. 
2,@f. p. 45. 


4 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


E. 458 vrouativel’ ovtos, vy TOV ’ATOAXW, palveTat, 
Meuavnr’ adnO@s, paiverar, vn Tovs Beovs, 


Servus Onesimus, of Charisius. 


S. 57 cvuvoloa yap TW meLpakiw, vn Tovs Beovs, 
Kal KOoopiw 


Senex Demeas cannot believe his son Moschion guilty. 


Sard doxeis Ye lor, v7 Tovs Beolts. 
Coquus to Parmenon. (Sud. restoration, confirmed by Jensen.) 


195 K. éy@ pev On mor dox@, v7 Tovs Beovs, 
€v TOLS KUKAOLS EwauTOY EKOEdUKOTA 
Opav KUKAw TpEXOoVTA Kal TwAOLpEVOY. 
“Verba sunt servi ob facinus nescio quod timentis ne in catesta ve- 
numdetur”’ (Mein.) ‘‘aut hominis liberi servitutis periculum metuentis.”’ 


(Kock) 


Ph. 44 TadnOn NEyw, v7) TOvs Beods. 
Senex paedagogus to young man. 


J. 1. 49 ] vm rods Beovs- 
Speaker uncertain, to Laches. 


~ ’ A y 
E. 183 Tov deamoTov ati, v7 TOY AmoAAW Kal Oeods. 


Servus Onesimus lays claim to his master’s ring. 
And possibly 


E. 503 vi tov ’Amrod\Aw [kal Beobs.? 
Context and restoration most uncertain: speaker probably servus 
Onesimus (Capps, cf. p. 17, n. 3). 


600 K. ovx 6 Tpddiuds gov, pos Hewv, ‘Ovno.pe, 
6 voy Exwy <THv> ‘ABpdtovoy thy Wadrpuar, 
EYNK Evayxos; 
Servus to Onesimus (Capps). 


Beeb py Katadpovnons, mpos Bewv.4 


Servus Syriscus, begging Smicrines to arbitrate. 


3'Crois., but cf. p. 17- 
4 rpos Oe@y Cairo; Oe@v Orion, Anthologn. 6. 4; Twv Oew@v Schneidewin. 


OATHS 5 


Pk. 185 amovevonobe’ mpos Oelav]’, EXevOEpav 
exe YuUvatika mpos Blay Tov KuUplou 
TONMATE KATAKNELTAYTES ; 


Servus Sosias, protesting to slave Davus (or Ovpwpds Sud.). 


Pk. 267 Jewpnaov, Ilatarke, mpos Oey’ 
madAov uw’ €denoeLs. 
Miles Polemon begs Pataecus to bring about a reconciliation with 
Glycera. 


Pk. 401 A. Gmeow ws oe. II. pods bedy, oiov Evers; 
Miles Polemon refuses to believe that Glycera will return to him. 


S. 88 THhv O€ ypavyv hudatreTeE 
aTO TOV Kepapiwy, mpos Dewy. 


Servus Parmenon (Leo, Mazon) gives orders to Chrysis. 


S. 107 A. ivavra, matdés, Tis d0Tw 
éml TovTovi pou TOY aceBn. II. yn, mpos Oewv. 
Servus Parmenon begs Demeas for mercy. 
Kn. 18 woTe unOels, mpos Jer, 
TpaTTwY KaKws ALav abuyunon OTE: 
Speaker uncertain. 
562 K. Tas 6 TO Tpavua TOUT’ ExELS; 
“pecayKirw.”” mas, mpos Oeav; “él KNlwaka 
mpos Tetxos avaBalywr.”’ 


Parasitus reports conversation with braggart soldier (Kock). 


H. 14 Mn KaTapw, mpos <tav>*® Hear, 
Servus Davus, in love, begs his comrade Getas to pity him. 
K. 6 mpos Tw Dewy, 
BEATLOTE, wLKpOV AV GxXOAGCGALS NULY XpOvoOY; 
Servus Syriscus respectfully asks for Smicrines’ arbitration. 
E. 224 T@S av ovV, TpOs THY Dewy, 
Tas av, ikeTeVW— 


Servus Onesimus, in perplexity, questions himself. 


5 Leeu., Sud., confirmed by Jensen. 
6 Hense, Leo; un katap@ wou Rich. 


6 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 231 mpos Tav Oewv, avOpwr’, airedd’. 
Meretrix Habrotonon (Capps)? to Sosias. 
Pk. 329 II. GA’ duws, CAvKepa, rpos tav ew, 
dcaddaynd’, 
Senex Pataecus begs Glycera. 


Ph. 6 Mn Tapadws, mpds Tav Dewy. 


Speaker uncertain.*® 


EK. 543 O. 7d 0’ a@pmacny’, ‘Hpaxders, 
Oavyacrov oiov. D. wpos dewy kat darwrvwv— 


Senex Smicrines indignant at the insolence of Onesimus. 


E. 267 elmpemns Tis, @ Deol, 
\ , ” r ’ 
Kal mAovglayv Epacay TW. 


EK. 272 kahov Tavu 
Kal Nerrov, @ Beol, TapavTivoy adddpa 
aTOAWAEKUL , 
Meretrix Habrotonon, of the wronged girl. 
Joy apy éNevbepa wdovoyv yevoiuny: @ Geol, 
ToUTOV AaGBorue urofov Ex TOUTWY. 


Meretrix Habrotonon expresses hope of liberty. 


Pkowi a Qeol, dervov moTmOv. 
Virgo Glycera, of Pataecus’ impoverishment. 


Pk. 397 @ Geol, tis Ear’ dvnots; 
Adulescens Moschion (Capps)*, discovering that Glycera is his sister. 
S. 91 éyw oe LaoTLyovv, wa TOV; dwoexa Heovs, 
af Vf 
ov BobNouar bua OANA. 
Senex Demeas, indignant, threatens Parmenon. 
Kl. 85 TWAD; Ma TOUS d»vbEKa Heovs 
ovK @opevos 
Leno refuses to sell meretrix to her lover (Leo). 
7 Polemon, Ko6r., aliv. 


8 One of the two daemones (?), Kér. 
° Glycera, Kér., Sud.; Pataecus, Rob. 


“J 


OATHS 


~9Or ‘ ~ x : 

jane 5K, 6 pce oi.’ aravras Tovs Oeous, 
yuvaikas érNacey, @ ToduvTiunTor Deol, 
€Ovos apo, 


Unknown man speaking. 


109 K. lotrws| ayabov rh pou yévouTo 
a ToNuTiunro.! Aeoi. 
UmodovpEvos TOV imavTa yap THs dekLas 
euBados amréeppné’. 
Unknown man speaking. 


429 K. mwobev yap, @ piror Jeol, 
TOUTOUS aVvEgTAaKAGLY OvTOL TOs OYoUS; 
Speaker uncertain. 


Surpassing the oath by Zeus, the chief of the gods, the oath by the 
gods collectively is the most common in Menander. In this usage his 
characters probably reflected the speech of daily life.1! Two things (cf. 
Meinhardt) induced men to use this oath: first, the added dignity in the 
oath which invokes the general group of gods instead of merely one. 
Thus in E. 458, v7) rods Oeovs is the climax of a series of asseveratives 
(cf. Capps). But more frequently, though the line of demarcation is not 
always certain, men seem to swear by the gods in general simply because 
they have no definite godin mind. Asa result this oath, originally strong, 
tended to become weaker and weaker. 

In this connection may be mentioned the addition of an oath by the 
gods to that by some individual god, under the so-called rhetorical fig- 
ure ‘‘amplificatio.”! This form of expression strengthens the oath: a 


POG jo, iil. 

11 Very frequent in the writers of dialogue (Meinhardt, 67) and in the orators 
(Kihnlein, 26); cf. Lasaulx, 179, n. 13; Ziebarth, 14. duviw buy Peods tavras in 
a papyrus letter of the third century B.C. (P. Ashmol, verso 5), ef. Arch. Pap. I 
(1901), 168; Wenger, 162 ff., 239. Also in oaths of public allegiance, Wenger, 242 
(Pet. Pap. II [1893], 46 a) and 246 (Cumont, REG. XIV [1901], 26f.) Wenger’s 
interesting article is of but little value for this study, since in all the papyri which 
he discusses there chance to be only three oaths of persons in private life (161 ff., 
239 ff.): the oath just cited duvvo Tov Lapamiv, Les papyrus grecs du Musée du 
Louvre, No. 47; and an oath by the Dioscuri, Aegypt. Urkunden aus den kgl. Museen 
zu Berlin, I (1895), 248. 

12 Cf. Rehdantz, 13, s.v. Erweiterung; Kiihnlein, 27; Pl. Men. 615, 655, 812, ete. 
The eustom of winding up a long series of oaths with the all-inclusive formula 
Qeovs mavras Kal tacas became very common after the time of Alexander. Cf. 


8 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


single god, as it were, is picked out to punish the perjurer, and then the 
gods in general are asked to help, in case this one god fails. Instances of 
this, viz. E. 179 ’'AondXov xai Geoi; E. 183, E. 503 (?), vn rov ’Arod\Aw 
kal Oeobs; Pk. 448, & Ty [kai Geoi]; 893 K. adX’ ‘Hpaxdecdes kai Geoi, will be 
treated under the head of the individual gods, respectively. 

It does not seem possible, in considering these oaths by the gods in 
general, to assign in each instance such definite religious motives as I 
shall hope to do with the oaths by the individual gods. I doubt if a 
Greek of the fourth century could have done so. All that I shall attempt 
will be to note such general matters as formulae and epithets, with such 
especial commentary as the specific passages may demand. 

Excluding the two oaths by the Twelve Gods, there are in Menander 
thirty-six oaths by the gods in general. The speakers are divided as 
follows: 


Men: senes 4 instances 
serva 13 
milites 2 
adulescentes 2 
parasity 1 
coqua if 
incertt 3 
Total, 26 
Women: virgines 1 
meretrices 4 
Total, 5 
Sex uncertain: 5 
Totaly 5 


The formal oaths are used as follows: ua rods Geovs, once; v7 Tos 
Meovs, six times. In none of these seven cases is the oath a weak one, 
but in every instance the speaker is under deep emotion. 


Ziebarth, 20, 34, n. 3; Usener, 22 f., Hirzel, 84; Lasaulx, 190, n. 68. Among the 
first instances are Eur. Med. 746, 752. This form of oath is frequent in Latin com- 
edy, cf. esp. Bacch. 892-895. Cf. Serv. ad Verg. Georg. 1. 21. 


OATHS 9 


mpos bev, apart from one instance of the formula pds bea kal dac- 
Hovey, occurs nine times; mpds trav Hewv, six. This preference for the 
form without the article is at striking variance with the usage of 
Aristophanes, who uses the longer form twenty-six out of twenty-nine 
times; while Plato, on the contrary, uses it only twice out of thirteen 
times.!3 Porson, ad Eur. Med. 325, affirmed that the article was al- 
ways omitted in tragedy. If so, in this respect, at least, Plato and 
Menander approached nearer the language of tragedy. 

By these facts, however, we are not permitted to conclude that 
Aristophanes reproduced the popular speech more faithfully than did 
Menander. Perhaps the usage in Plato was due to tragic influence, 
while that in Menander may have been due to a change in popular 
usage during the century between Aristophanes and Menander. This 
suggestion is confirmed by the evidence of the Middle Comedy: Of 
nine instances of the oath zpés (rev) Oewv cited by Selvers, 61, six are 
in the shorter form. A priori, one would expect such a decline in the 
use of the article in the later writers; frequent usage should tend to 
shorten the formula. So, Heron. 7. 99, we find vai ua Oeovs; and yet in 
the bucolic poets the article is never omitted.“ I am unwilling to 
hazard any explanation of these contradictory phenomena, though I am 
loth to ascribe the difference which we have noted to the whims of the 
individual writers, or to mere chance. 

Menander confined these oaths introduced by zpés to imperative and 
interrogative sentences,!° as did the orators'® and Aristophanes.!’7 The 
preposition mpés equals “‘in the presence of,” ‘‘before,” and the entire 
phrase, ‘‘in the presence of the gods,”’ “‘inheaven’sname.”’ Initsprimitive 
force the phrase is supplicatory, suitable for the address of a superior by 
an inferior. Hence the use of ixerebw in the same context with this oath 


13 Meinhardt, 9; cf. Fuller, De articuli in antiquis Graecis comoediis usu, Er- 
langen diss., Leipzig (1888), 75. 

144 Ameis, De articuli usu apud poetas Graecorum bucolicos, progr. Mithlhausen 
(1846), 37 g.; Fuller l.c. 

15 This rule would bar, for example, the punctuation adopted by Kérte, Pk. 185, 
who groups mpos Jewy with amovevonobe, as a simple declarative verb, instead of 
with the interrogative that follows. If awovevdnofe is punctuated as a question, 
the oath may be construed with it; but the following indignant question, as 
the more emphatic, is more naturally accompanied by the oath. Cf. also 8. 88, 
where Leo’s punctuation is to be preferred. 

16 Frohberger, Lysias (1857), ad Or. 13. 95; Ktihnlein, 57. 

17 ““anparet Ar. huiusmodi formulas non usurpasse nisi ita ut sint postulantis s. 
vetantis aut interrogantis’’—Bachmann, 147. 


10 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


in E. 224 is appropriate, even though the entreating question is ad- 
dressed by the speaker to himself. 

Note the angry oath of Smicrines, E. 548, in which he joins the ‘‘de- 
mons’’ to the gods in the formula zpos dew cai daudvwv. As the sen- 
tence is not finished, we cannot tell exactly how Smicrines intended to 
use the oath. Without considering the complicated question of the exact 
nature of these “‘demons” (cf. Waser, P.-W. IV. 2010 ff. with bibl.), it 
is sufficient to understand by them that great mass of beings, less than 
gods but more than men, which the superstitious imagination of the 
Greeks thought ever capable of helping or harming men as they saw fit. 
I suspect that Smicrines thinks of them especially in their malignant 
manifestations, hoping to call down their ill-will upon the insolent Ones- 
imus. With this oath compare the sweeping tone of Carion’s surprised 
query, Arist. Pl. 81 f.: 


@ PoiB’ "Amoddov Kai Geol Kal daiwoves 
\ ~ a ete (gle ro ” = Hts 
kat Zev, TL Mns} Exetvos OvTws Ei aU; 


See also, in the orators, Isaeus 2.47; Demos. 42.17; Aesch. 3.137.!8 

The vocative form of the oath by all the gods, accompanied by the 
simple particle @, occurs in five passages, the speaker in four instances 
being a woman. @ 6eoi was primarily an exclamation, like other voca- 
tive oaths, e.g., @ Zev modvriunre (cf. p. 37), ® I'n nal Oeoi (ef. p. 24), 
@ Zev Larep (cf. p. 39), @ Hocedov (cf. p. 48). In E. 267, 272, it ex- 
presses admiration; E. 331, impassioned hope; Pk. 377, pity and com- 
miseration; Pk. 397, despair. For similar uses in Aristophanes see Dun- 
bar’s Concordance, p. 139. Of these oaths Selvers, 60 n. 1, says: 
“Homines eis utuntur si quid mirabile audiverunt, ut deorum in ea 
re auxilium impetrent.”’ 

The Twelve Gods!* were Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Apollo, 
Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hermes, Athena, Hep} aestus, and Hestia. We 
find centers of their worship scattered all over Greece. Frequently in 
connection with the shrines of one of their number, and especially in the 
market places, altars were built in their honor. The altar in the market 


18 Cf. Kiihnlein, 26 f. See also Heliod. 231. 11, with whom the collocation eot 
Kal datwoves was a favorite, see esp. 90. 19 (ef. 92. 9), 158. 22, 234. 8; cf. Rohde, 
Der gr. Roman?, (1900), 463. 

19 Cf. Petersen, Das Zwélfgéttersystem der Griechen u. Romer, progr. Hamburg 
(1853-1868); Gruppe, Miiller’s Hdb. V 2. 1097 f., esp. 1098, n. 1, with bibl. See 
also Pl. Epid. 675. 


OATHS Lit 


at Athens was said to have been built by the younger Pisistratus.2° “‘oi 
dmdexa’”’ was an exclamation of good omen, like the German “‘Gesund- 
heit,” cf. schol. Arist. Av. 95. The earliest passage in which ‘‘the 
twelve” are used in an oath” is Arist. Hq. 235, where the Paphlagonian 
roundly curses Dicaeopolis and the Sausage-dealer: 


” A \ , A Ul 
ovTo. wa TOvs dwoeKa Deo’s XaLpnoeETor, 
t \ aaa = t r t 
oT 3=o1l TH Onuw EvvdpvuTov Tada. 


As Petersen, I 16, remarks, since this oath occurs but once in Aristopha- 
- nes it must have been rare in private conversation, and reserved for im- 
portant occasions. In Menander it occurs twice, 8. 91, and KI. 85, on 
each occasion a most solemn oath. It occurs, for the fourth time in the 
extant Greek literature, in Alciph. E’pist. 2. 3. 8., the well-known letter 
of Menander to Glycera. Menander assures Glycera that he has abso- 
lutely no intention of going to Ptolemy’s court: m)eiv wey Kat eis Aiyu- 
Tov amevar makpayv ovTws Kal amwKiouerny Bacireay ovoay, wa ToOUs dwoeKa 
Oeovs, ov6€ EvOvuovuar. Alciphron’s imitation of the style of Menander 
is a matter of common knowledge.” Inasmuch as three out of four of 
the known examples of this oath come from Menander or his conscious 
imitator, the question suggests itself, whether its use was not character- 
istic of his style. Probably this oath had increased in usage by the time 
of Menander and hence was not as strong as it had been originally. 
The oath & zodvriwnro. Oeot occurs twice in Menander, 535 and 
109 K. The second is a very corrupt passage. Editors have sought 
to reduce the quotation to an iambic trimeter by emending it in various 
ways, notably by reading rodbriwou for modvtipyrou, which stands in 
all the authors by whom the verse is quoted. Meineke™ sought to defend 


20 Thucyd. 6. 54; ef. Molin, De ara apud Graecos, diss. Berlin (1884), 48. 

21 Cf. Ziebarth, 14; Hense, BpbhW. X XIX (1909), 355. 

22 Cf. Schmid, P.-W. I 1549; Volkmann, Studia Alciphronea, I. De Alciphrone 
comoe diae imitatore, diss. Breslau (1886), 31 ff.; Bonner, ClPh. IV (1909), 32, n. 1; 
Guizot, Ménandre, étude historique et littéraire sur la comédie et la société grecques, 
Paris (1855), 68 ff. with nn. 

23 @) qoNuTivytoe Oeot Pet. Victorius ed. (1550) Clem. Alex. 7. 4. 24; Grotius, 
Excerpta ex tragoediis (1626), 715; id. Men. et Phil. reliquiae (1709), 40; Dindorf, ad 
Clem. Alex. (1869-70), l.c.; Cobet, N. L. (1868), 56 f.; Blaydes; Cramer, Anecd. Ox. 
IV 251; Theodor. Affect. cur. (Rider, 1904) 6. 88.5; Riider, Nord. Tidskrift f. Filol. 
(1896), 54-56 (cf. Holzinger, Burs. Jahresb. [1903], 321 f.), who has anticipated 
much of my argument on this passage. moAv’Tiuou Jeot Sylburg, ad Clem. Alex. 
(1592) 302. 13; Mein.; Kock. 

24 Cf. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj.! (1809), 242; Valckenir, ad Theoe. Adon. (1810), p. 
228 c. 


12 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


the emendation by impugning the testimony of the lexicographer Am- 
monius, who (p. 118), plainly distinguishes between the two words: 
ToNUTLWOS 6 TOAANS TLULNS NyopacuEvos aVOpwros, TodUTiunTos 6€ GO ToAANS 
tyuuns aéios: ‘‘And so,” he says, ‘‘we call the gods zoduripnrovs.”’ 
To show that the two words were not always as carefully distinguished 
as the rule of Ammonius demands, Meineke quotes the famous reply 
of the Megarian in Ach. 759 to the query of Dicaeopolis as to the price 
of food at Megara: zap’ aui wodvtivaros azep Toi Geot. Meineke also 
cited for a similar use of rodvtiunros = rodvUTipos, expensive, Arist. 387.9 
K.; Callix. ap. Athen. 5.200b; and Epichar. ap. Athen. 7. 282 d. 
From this evidence Meineke concluded that the two words were fre- 
quently interchanged. But the evidence merely proves that zodvuriyy- 
Tos Was sometimes used in the sense which the grammatical purist in- 
sisted belonged properly to zoAdtriwos, 1.e., expensive. But there is no- 
thing to prove the converse, that zodv7 wos was ever used for zodvuTipnros, 
reverend, especially as an epithet of the gods. There is no instance of 
it in Menander, and the few apparent exceptions elsewhere are due to 
faulty tradition.” On the other hand, zodvtipuyros as an epithet of the 
gods is very common,” especially in oaths, e.g., in Menander @ Zev zo- 
Nutiunre, in Pk. 313, 351 K., and 848. The manuscript reading rodvzi- 
unto. Should, therefore, be preserved in 109 K. Whatever metrical 
fault there may be in the quotation, it lies elsewhere than in the last 
three words. The simplest remedy is to assume with Cobet a lacuna 
after yévo.ro. 

I have called this an oath. It is really a combination of a curse and an 
oath” “So help me god, but this is true,’””—to use the modern equiva- 
lent—or “‘ita me di ament”’ of the Romans.” The same curse, but with- 
out the invocation of the gods, occurs elsewhere in Menander, E. 47, 530; 


25 See Stephanus Thes. s.v. ro\uTiunros, Cobet |.c. Arist. Ran. 324 roduTivors 
Hermann (followed by Mein., Kock, et al.), a faulty emendation. 

26 H.g., Arist. Ach. 807; Eq. 1390; Nub. 269, 293, 328; Vesp. 1001; Paz 978, 1016; 
Av. 667; Thesm. 286, 594; Ran. 337, 399; 319 K.; Antiph. 145 K.; Pher. 73 K.; Eu- 
bul. 117 K.; Plut. Mulier. virtt. 258 b. Cf. é woduvtiunr’ Aioyude Arist. Ran. 851; 
@ modutiunre EvOvénue Pl. Euthyd. 296 d. 

27 Cf. Lasaulx, 178; Hirzel, s.v. Der Eid ein Fluch, 137 ff. with parallels cited; ~ 
also Capps, ad E. 47 and J. II 23 (p. 97). 

28 Pl. Amph. 597. Bacch. 111, Cas. 452, etc., cf. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, I 
LIB ae 


OATHS 13 


ef. EH. 141, 145, Pk. 2138, J. IJ 23.°°. The invocation without the curse 
stands alone in 535 K., where it is clearly an oath of the exclamatory tone 
peculiar to the vocatives introduced by @. 

Somewhat similar as an exclamation is the oath @ @idor eoi, 429 K. 
Compare the exclamation in Arist. Pl. 854: 


“'AmodXov amorporate Kal Oeol Pidor, 


Tl wot éaoTiv 6 Te weTOVOEY aVOPwIOS KAKOV; 


So also, Pl. 7384, & pido Geoi is, in the words of Fischer, ‘vox admi- 
rationis sed simul sperantis bonum et laetum rei exitum.”’ For the force 
of the epithet giro, see p. 27. 


OATHS BY ATHENA. 


’ ’ tr t ” , ~ mu) ~ 
Ee Kelales ovK andys, ws Eoxey, ei.’ idetv OVO EVTUXELY, 
” ‘ \ ~ > b , 
olouat, wa THY “A@nvav, GAN ETalpars tpoodiAns. 


Adulescens Moschion boasts of his attractions. 


293. 5 K. Yr. AdeEdvdpov mdeEov 
Tou Pacidéws TeTWKAS. B. ovKx €XaTTOV, ov, 
wa thy “AOnvav.! 

Mules glortosus Bias answers the flattering Strouthias.? 


536. 1 K: ua thy “AOnvav, avipes, eixov’ ovK Exw 
elpely Ouolav T® YEeyovOTL TPAYLMATL, 


“Verba sunt novi amatoris”’ (Cobet) or ‘‘novi mariti’”’ (Porson). 


402.13 K. eit’ éoTl TO 
dpvlayyua mws Urootatov; wa Tov Aia 
\ ’ r \ \ ’ ~ os ~ 
Tov ‘Odvurvov kat Thy ’APnvay, oldapyas. 


“ Maritus senex,’” Gell. N. Ait. 2. 23.8, ad h. 1. 


29 Tn all these passages, as in Alciph. Hpist. 1. 36. 2, ps.-Demos. proem. 33. 2, and 
in the similar formulae cited by Bergler, ad Alciph. l.c. (ef. Stephanus Thes. I 
128), the dative of the personal pronoun is never omitted. Hence the objection 
to the reading of our passage proposed by Rader: 

ayaboy Tu yivatt’ & ToduUTiunTor Geol. 

1’A@nvatiav, Mein. ‘“‘inconsulto’’ (Blaydes), a form unknown to later comedy, 
not found in inscriptions after 342 B.C.; indeed, ’A@yvav is the prevailing form 
after 362 B.C.; cf. Meisterhans-Schwyzer, 31, n. 157, 32. 2, 123. 19. 

2 Mein.; Naber, Mn. VIII (1880), 416; Kock. 


14 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


569 K. TIAuképa, Ti kAaets; Ouviw cor Tov Ala 
Tov ‘Odvprov Kal tnv “AOnvav, didrarn, 
OMw@pmOKaS Kal TpOTEpov On TOoAAAKLS. 


Miles Polemon (?) soothes his mistress (Capps). 


AT. LiKe vn THY ’AOnvav, waxaprov y’ n XpnaToTns 
Tpos TavTa Kal Oavuacrov Epdd.ov Biw. 


Unknown man speaking: servus or senex? 


140.1 K. mpos Tns “A@nvas, datuovas, yeyovws ern 
Tocave’; 
Senex reproves senem. (Ter. Heaut. I. 1, Chremes addresses Menede- 
mus.) 


Kd. 22 déorrorly’* "AOnva, o@teé pe. 
Speaker uncertain.® 


As Athena was the especial goddess of Athens, so the oath by Athena 
was peculiarly an Athenian oath. With Zeds rarnp and Apollo, Athena 
is invoked in a formula of wish or curse that occurs several times in 
Homer.’ In Aristophanes, there is only one instance of Athena’s name 
in an oath, viz., Pax 218, but after Aristophanes this oath becomes 
frequent.® 

In Menander men swear by Athena, usually not as the protecting deity 
of the city (words), but as the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, and truth.?® 
By her, Moschion asserts his prowess with the ladies, Pk. 113; by her 
Bias affirms the truth of his boastful tales, 293.5 K; her name is used to 
strengthen the aphorisms of worldly philosophy, 472.1. K. In the name 
of Athena, friend accuses friend of insanity, 140.1. K; an appeal is made 


3 Moschion (?), Rob.; v. 3, Glycera, Capps. 

4-G:-H. 

5 Doris, Kretschmar, 65, but women never used this oath; ef. p. 15. 

6 Luc. De sacrif. 10, schol. ad Jl. 2. 371. Cf. Arist. Pax 217; Kihnlein, 28; Mein- 
hardt, 55f., 71; Ziebarth, 9. 

7 Tl. 2. 371, 4. 288, 7. 1382, 16. 97; Od. 4. 341, 7. 311, 17. 132, 18. 235. 

8 Lasaulx, n. 14, Meinhardt, 55. For its use in various triple, public oaths, see 
Usener, 19 ff. 

®Meinhardt, 56; cf. Welcker, Gr. Gétterl. I 314 f., II 303 ff.; Preller-Robert, 
221 ff. Nicostratus (Brandis schol. in Aristot. 87 b. 30 ff.) gives vn tnhv ’“A@nvav 
erpata Tae, ov wa THY “AOnvav ovk érpaga, as typical oaths of affirmation and 
denial (Hirzel, 4, n. 5). 


OATHS 15 


to her by a person who cannot find speech adequate to express the 
wretchedness of his plight, 536. 1 K. 

But because Athena was the Athenian goddess par excellence, an oath 
by her had peculiar sanctity, especially when coupled with that by an- 
other great divinity whom the Athenians worshipped in common with 
her, as, for example, Olympian Zeus.'!° This double oath is used in 402. 
13 K and 569, by the hen-pecked husband and the lover (Polemon?) 
respectively." The binding power of this particular oath is apparent in 
the lover’s last remark, 569: having sworn so often,!2 as he says, he 
certainly would not weaken his case now with a common-place oath." 

Lastly it will be noticed that only men swear by Athena. This is 
in conformity with her character as a patron of the manly arts and vir- 
tues, rather than those of Aphrodite (Welcker, Gr. Gétterl. 1 314). 

I have included KI. 22 for the sake of completeness, though the pas- 
sage sounds more like a prayer than an oath proper. Unfortunately, 
since the papyrus is so broken that context and speaker are uncertain, 
little can be learned as to the exact usage of the oath. The epithet 
déorowa, which the English editors have here restored, is frequently 
applied to this goddess," for example: Arist. Eq. 763, Pax 271 (distinctly 
an oath); Eur. Suppl. 1227, Rhes. 608, Cycl. 350; Kaibel, Epigr. 796. 1; 
Heron. 4. 58; Soph. Aj. 38. 105, Plato Legg. 796 f., ete. It also occurs 
in an oath in Dinarchus 1. 36, & d€orow’ ’AOnva kal Zed carep. It was 
not, however, an epithet peculiar to Athena, but might be used of any 
goddess held in great reverence.'® 


10 Ziebarth, 14. Cf. Welcker, II 280 f.; Prell.-Rob. 188, 220; Dummler in P.-W. 
II 2001 f.; Usener, 330; Gruppe, Miiller’s Hdb. V 2. 1217 f. 

1 This same formula, Alexis 231 K. (Meinhardt, 56). Cf. Arist. Pax 218, Liban. 
IT 102. 6. 

2 These do not sound to me like the words of Glycera (Capps); ef. kal mpoTepov 
ToAAAKLS OMwpoKa, Theophr. Char. 13, where, however, the weplepyos is bombastic 
(Hirzel, 87, n. 2). 

13 6uvuue in place of wa, v7 isemphatic; cf. Heron. 3.83, Ouvuuc . . . Tas 
dirtas Movoas; Schréder (1859), 5 ff. 

144 Meinhardt, 56. Only once in Plautus or Terence: Bacch. 893, Minerva is one 
of the seventeen deities by whom Chrysalus servus swears. Women did swear by 
"‘AyXavupos, e.g. Arist. Thesm. 533, who was sometimes identified with Athena, 
ef. Harpocration s.v. ’’AyAavpos; Neumann-Partsch, Phys. Geogr. von Griechenl. 
(1885), 32. 

16 Here, as elsewhere, I am largely indebted to Bruchmann, Epitheta deorum 
quae apud poetas Graecos leguntur (1893). 

146The ‘Clouds,’ Arist. Nub. 356; Cybele, Av. 877; Hecate, Aesch. 388 N.; 
Artemis, Soph. El. 626; Aphrodite, Aleiphr. Hp. 1.32.1, 36.3,39.1. This list (Ste- 
phanus T'hes. s.v.) could be considerably extended. 


16 STUDIES IN MENANDER 
OATHS BY APOLLO. 


Pk. 440 ’"Aroddov"* Os Kal viv aro\wAa Tap’ OALYor, 
Tadw TL Tpaka TpomTeETes; 
Miles Polemon, repentant, assures Pataecus that Glycera will never 
again find cause of grievance. 


S. 222 add’, ’'AmoAdov, 7 Opa rary Wodel. 
Senex Demeas, greatly excited. 


Sae2 'ArrodXov, Movow“axnaw THuEpor, 
Gs EOLK’, EYW. 


Senex Demeas protects Chrysis against the angry Niceratus. 


307 KK. 'ArodXov, avOpwrwy tiv’ aO\wwTEpov 
cOpakas; ap’ EpavrTa dvaTOTUWTEpOY; 
Miles Thrasonides of himself (Kock); or more probably servus Getas; 
of Thrasonides (Mein.). 


403. 4 K. Kuplay Tns oiklas 
Kal TQV ayp@v Kal TOV ATAaYTWY AVTLKpUS 
exouev, “'AroAXov, ws xadeT@V XaNeTwWTATOP. 


“dem ille maritus senex cum altero sene vicino conloquens at uxoris 
superbiam deprecans haec ait.”” Aul. Gell. 2. 23. 12. 


489 K. *'Arro\Aov, GAAA oKALOY OV ETplws EveLS 
MET MapTUpwY aTvxXEW Tapov heAnOEvat. 


Unknown speaker. 


E. 179 *'ArodXov Kal Geo, dervov KaKov. 


Servus Syriscus waxes indignant at Onesimus’ seeming covetous desire 
for the baby’s ring. 


H. 39 A. Teé€ra, xatayenas; TI. pa rov ’Ato\dw. 
Servus Getas reassures his comrade Davus. 


Pk. 138 eyo 6° elpnKa cou 
ws méemex’ €NOev Exeiynv; wa Tov “AToOANwW, “yw pev oi. 


Servus Davus, in terror, tries to cover his lie to his master Moschion. 


OATHS 17 


S. 94 A. ovyxpimres Te pds mw én wadar. 
II. pa rov Acovyaorv, wa tov ArodAw, “yo wev ob,} 
pa Tov Aia tov owrnpa, wa tov ’AloxAnmor. 
Servus Parmenon, terrified by his master Demeas, who threatens to 
flog him. 


S.251 N. kai Bovxodeis pe; A. pa tov ’Amtdd\\w, “yo per od. 
Senex Demeas reassures Niceratus, troubled by his daughter’s plight. 


’ ce , 
E. 457 vrouaive? ovtos, v7 Tov ’ATO\AW, paiverat, 
beuavnt adnOas, waiverar, vy Tovs Peots. 


Servus Onesimus, of his master Charisius. 


E. 503 vi) tov ’AroAXw | 

Context and restoration most uncertain;? probably servws Onesimus 
(Capps).’ 
E. 183 tov deorérouv ‘ari, v7 TOV ’AmOANW Kal Deods. 


Servus Onesimus lays claim to his master’s ring. 


PE 172 xatera TavTa TavTEedas 
\ t ’ ’ , \ \ ’ / [ ' 4 
TQ TpayuaT eoti, vn Tov “AmOANW ToUTO|V. 


Speaker uncertain.° 


740 K. papripoua, [val wal® tov ’Ard\Xw TouTor[t7 
Kal Tas Ovpas. 


Unknown speaker. 


Here, also, possibly E. 503, ef. supra, vj rav ’Amd\XAw [rovrovi.§ 


1 Crois., Ell., Head., Leo. wa tov ’AmO\Aw, “yw yev ov occurs in Aristophanes 
Ach. 59, 101; Eq. 14, 1041; Pax 16; Av. 263, 439 (Hense, BpbhW. XXIX [1909], 365); 
and Nub. 732; in Menander twice, Pk. 138, 8. 251. Cf. Capps. 

2 Cf. p. 4; or perhaps ’A7o\Aw Tovrovi, cf. infra. 

3 Senex Charisius (Rob.); but ef. tepdavde, v. 504. Habrotonon (Crois., Kér.) 
but women do not swear by Apollo, ef. p. 18. 

4 Head., Leo., rar’ oxv® Sud. (ravra Jen.) 

5 Servus Davus (Leeu., Capps), ostiarius (Donax?) (Ké6r.), servus Polemonis 
(Gerhard), servus Sosias (Lef., Crois., Crén., Head., Sud.). Habrotonon (Rob.), 
Doris (Wil.); but women do not use this oath, ef. p. 18. See Gerhard, Phil. LXTX 
(1910), 16 ff. with nn.; Capps, crit. app. 

5 Mein. 

7 Bentley. 

8 Capps, Kor. 


18 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


The oath by Apollo was especially sacred at Athens.® It was a very 
old oath of the Ionians, being especially appropriate as used by Achilles to 
Calchas, the prophet of Apollo, in Jl. 1. 86.1° Neither in Menander nor 
in other writers is there any instance of a woman’s swearing by Apollo." 
The most frequent aspect under which he was invoked was as the averter 
of ills, amorpématos or adekixaxos;'? though as it happens these epithets 
are not found in Menander nor in any of the comic poets of Middle or 
New Comedy." However, with this meaning "Azo\\ov became so com- 
mon an invocation that it lost all of its significance as an oath, and de- 
generated into the mere sign of a question or an exclamation.“ To the 
examples of the vocative which Meinhardt gives, i.e., 337 K., 403. 4, 489, 
should now be added Pk. 440, S. 222, 225. Pk. 440 has been cited by 
several commentators” as a further example of the Greek fondness for 
‘“etymologizing,”® the derivation of ’Aro\\wy from a7oddume being 
almost a commonplace.!’ In E. 179, Syriscus calls upon Apollo aXegixakos, 


®Meinhardt, 30; Ziebarth, 9. See citations by Wernicke, P.-W. II 14. The 
heliastic oath was v7 tov Ata kai tov ’Aro\AW Kal THY Anunrpa (cf. Frankel, 
Herm. XIII [1878], 452 ff. esp. 460) or vy tov Ala kal tov Hocede@ kai trHv 
Anunrpa (cf. Ziebarth, 17 f. with bibl.). See also Prell.-Rob. 110 n. 1; Usener, 
19; Hirzel, 127 n. 1; Meier-Schém.-Lip. 151 ff.; Lasaulx, 197 ff. with nn., 181 n. 16. 

10 See also citations s.v. Athena, n. 7. For official oaths, see Usener, 17 ff. Cf. 
Lasaulx, n. 14. 

11 Schol. Arist. Lysist. 917. Cf. Meinhardt, 30, 33; Ziebarth, 11, also in P.-W. 
V 2077. ua tov ’AmoAdw is used by Ergasilus parasitus, Pl. Capt. 880, Phaniscus 
servus, Most. 973. Women posing as men swear by Apollo, Arist. Lysist. 917, 
Eccl. 160, 631. 

12 Bothe (1845) ad Arist. Hq. 1307 (1195), Nub. 1372 (1314), Plut. 359 (355) ; Wila- 
mowitz (1895), ad Eurip. Heracl. 821; Kock (1853), Ribbeck (1864), Leeuwen 
(1901), ad Arist. Hg. 1807; Kock (1852), ad Arist. Nub. 1372; Meinhardt, 31, 33; 
Ziebarth, 11; Schém.-Lip. II‘ 371 f.; Wernicke in P.-W. II 16. 

13 Only in Eupol. inc. fr. 11 577. 16 M. (= Arist. Hg. 1307). Elsewhere in Arist., 
Vesp. 161, Av. 61, Pl. 359, 854. 

144 Schol. Arist. Pl. 555; schol. PI. Rep. 509 c. Cf. Meinhardt, 32. 

15 Weil, J. S. (1900), 53; Kretschmar, 103; Hense, BphW. XXIX (1909), 355; 
Capps. 

16 Elmsley, ad Eur. Bacch. 508; Fuochi, Le etimologie dei nomi propri nei tra- 
gici Greci, StIF. VI (1898), 273-378. Eitrem, BphW. XXVIII (1908), 416, goes a 
little far, perhaps, in treating as conscious plays upon words: 


E. 563 ayabov ov Kpives, Suckpivn; 
or Smicrines’ word to Sophrone: 

E. 529 Kplvomar Tpos Dwpovnv. 
and E. 531 Ladpovn yap. 


17 Aesch. Ag. 1081, Eur. 781. 11. N. (ef. schol. Eur. Orest. 1389), Archil. 20 (Hil- 
ler-Crusius); Pl. Crat. 404e; Apocalyps. 9. 11; Macrob. 1. 17. Cf. Blaydes ad 


OATHS 19 


and then the rest of the gods, as Croiset remarks “‘collectivement et par 
surcroit.’’!§ 

With the particles v7 or wa, in affirmations or negations, Apollo as the 
god of truth and prophecy'® was frequently invoked. This usage is found 
in Menander in emphatic answers: H. 39, Pk. 138. In§8. 94, the terror- 
stricken Parmenon calls not only Apollo to witness his innocence but also 
Dionysus, Zeus Soter, and Asclepius. Hense, BphW. XXIX (1909), 
355, has remarked with much probability that we have here a reminis- 
cence of some state formula of the period in which the old sacred groups 
of three were being reassembled into newer and larger groups, according 
to the hypothesis advanced by Usener, 22f. E. 457 f. gives another 
very good example of v7 rév ’A7o\Xw in an affirmation. Here the verbal 
idea is repeated three times, and the asseveration taken up twice again 
in adnOes and v1 rovs Oeovs.2° Similarly vy tov ’AwoA\Aw Kai Geovs, 
E. 183, as Croiset! has remarked, is a strong formula of affirmation. As 
to E. 503, nothing can be asserted. 8.251 is interesting because, in addi- 
tion to the customary affirmation, there may be a possible reference to 
Apollo, the ‘‘neat-herd”’ (Nouvos, Loiprios, ete.).” 

In 740 K.,” to which Pk. 172 is now to be added, and possibly E. 503, 
we have an oath by rov ’Aro\Xw rovrovi. 740 K. concludes with an oath 
by ras Oipas*, an indication that Apollo in some way is connected with 


Aesch. Ag. 1081; Prell.-Rob. 230 n. 3, 232 n. 3; Ziegler, De praecationum apud 
Graecos formis quaestiones selectae, diss. Breslau (1905), 55 f.; Fuochi, 305. 

18 Cf. Hense, BphW. X XTX (1909), 1492. This is an excellent example of am- 
plificatio, cf. p. 7. 

19 Cf. Meinhardt, 28; Prell.-Rob. 281 ff., and esp. Wernicke in P.-W. II 14, who 
derives the oath by Apollo entirely from his function as a god of prophecy. But 
Arist. Vesp. 161, and Av. 61, two passages cited by him, are obviously prayers to 
a god who can save from harm, since the epithet amotpomauos is used. 

20 Cf. Capps. I have assumed that E. 458 belongs here. Interpolation was sus- 
pected by Ell. and Harburtun. Diels (ef. Kérte, BSG. LX [1908], 133) followed 
by Crois., Kér., deletes it as a mere variant for v. 457. Now, see Jensen. 

21 Cf. Hense, BphW. XXIX (1909), 1492. 

22 Cf. Prell.-Rob. 269 f.; Wernicke, P.-W. II 10, 25 f. 

23 Cf. J. B. Hensen (in Graevius, Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum V) De 
iureiurando veterwm (1696), 836; Bentley (1710); Mein. (1823); Lobeck, Aglaopham. 
(1829), 1335; Dobree (1831-3); Fritzsche (1838) ad Arist. Thesm. 748; Schréder, 
(1845), 4n.; (1859), 25; Kock (1888); Meinhardt (1892), 21; Blaydes, ad Arist. 
Thesm. (1880), 748, Adver. II (1896), 232. Hirzel, 13n. 4, compares ot wa 746’ 
adavatwv evKoopnta mpobipaca, Hymn. in Mercur. 384, cf. id. 17, 20, 22 n. 1. 

24 Wrongfully suspected by Naber, Mn. VIII (1880), 425; Blaydes, Adver. See 
Suidas h.]. (s.v. val wa 70) for examples of oaths by inanimate objects; cf. Schré- 
der (1859), 21 f.; Meinhardt, 72; Hirzel, 13 f. To emend @vpas is to remove most 


20 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


the doorways mentioned. Perhaps, as Professor Capps has suggested 
to me, we should read rovvovi rapa ras Oipas. From many passages 
in comedy” and tragedy**—in some cases with a form of expression very 
similar to that which we have here—and the ancient comments?’ on 
those passages, it is very clear that it was a custom, in making this oath, 
to confirm it by touching or making a sweeping gesture towards the 
statue or altar of the god (perhaps both together)?* which stood in front 
of the house.?* The god who is here invoked is without any doubt Apollo 
“Ayueets,?° the guardian of goings-forth and comings-in, with whose 
worship that of Apollo Ilarp@os may possibly have been joined.*! It has 
been thought that we are to picture him as represented here by the con- 
ical, obelisk-shaped stones, which the commentators tell us were emblems 
of Apollo Agyieus. If so, it isremarkable that we have no archaeological 
evidence of such a stage setting.*? We may be practically certain, I 
think, that an altar*® of the ordinary round (Swuov—orpoyyiXor, 





of the point of Suidas’ citation. He says: of apxator ob tpoTeTas KaTa THY Dewy 
@uvvov, AAAG Kal THY TpodTVYXavOYTwY, ws Kat Mévavdpos krr. Cf. ‘‘per prae- 
sentes deos jurat,’’ Curt. De gest. Alex. 6. 25. 5; Hirzel, 24n.1; iuro, per te 
praesentem conspicuumque deum,”’ Ovid, Trist. 2. 53 f. 

2 Arist. Thesm. 748 (cf. Apollon. Dysc. De pron. 372 Bekk.), Nub. 84 with schol., 
Vesp. 875 with schol.; Pherec. 87 K.; Ter. Andr. 726 (cf. Men. 45 K.) with Donat. 
ad 1. (Wessner [1902], reads “Ayucatov for Anduov, ef. Dziatzko, RhMus. XXXI 
[1876], 239 f.); Pl. Most. 1094, Bacch. 172, Merc. 676, Truc. 476, Rud. 1333, Mil. 
Glor. 411, Aulul. 584 f., 606 f., Curc. 71; Men. 748 K. (read with Mein. tovroy 
for a’rov). Cf. Fritzsche (1838) ad Arist. Thesm. 748; Welcker, I 495-499; 
Prell.-Rob. 276 and n. 1; Reisch, P.-W. I 910-913; Kretschmar, 103, ad Pk. 440. 

26 Aesch. Ag. 1081, Soph. El. 637, 645, cf. 1375, O. T. 919, Eur. Phoen. 274, 631. 
Cf. Brunck (1786) ad Soph. O. T. 16.; Reisch l.c., Prell.-Rob. l.c. 

27 For citation and discussion of principal passages, see Welcker l.c., Reisch 
l.e., Prell.-Rob. l.c. 

28 Hellad. ap. Phot. 535 b. Bekk.; cf. Reisch, P.-W. I 1654 f. 

29 Poll. 4. 123: emi 6€ THs oKNVNS Kal ayuLEds ExeLTO BwyOs TPO THY Pupwy; Har- 
pocr. S.v. ayuleis: of Tpd THY OlKL@Y Bwyol, ds Paci Kparivos cai Mevavdpos. 
For evidence of vase-paintings, etc., ef. Reisch, P.-W. 1912 f. 

30 See also, Daremb.-Sagl. I 168 f.; Schém.-Lip. II 184, 581. Molin, De ara apud 
Graecos, diss. Berlin (1884), 24; Olivieri, Rivista di filologia, XXVIII (1900), 449 
on Pk. 427, Capps, ad Pk. 242 (172); Meinhardt, 71; Ziebarth, 7 f. 

31 Cf. Petersen, Hausgottesdienst der alten Griechen (1857), 14f.; Reisch, P.-W. 
1 1648, 912. Molin, 27 f., places the altar of Apollo, protector of the home, within 
the living-room; ef. Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen (1890), II 290 n. 2. 

32 They do. appear on coins, cf. Reisch, P.-W. I 911 f. 

33 Altars, of course, are commonly represented on vase-paintings dealing with 
dramatic scenes, ef. Wieseler, Das Theatergebdéude (1851), III 18, IX 9, 10 (Molin 
l.c. 50). That it was represented on the stage of new comedy is clear from the 


OATHS 21 


Hellad. l.c.) or cubical shape, stood on the stage. Whether bythis altar, 
there stood the conical emblem of the god, or even his complete statue, 
is a matter concerning which, in my opinion, no definite decision can be 
reached. (Reisch, P.-W. I 911 ff.) 


OATHS BY ASCLEPIUS. 


Pk. 146 M. gdAvapets rpos we. A. pa tov ’AokAnmLOr, 
ovK Eywy’, Eav akovons. 


Servus Davus hoodwinks his master Moschion about Glycera. 


8. 95 A. ovyxptrres Te TpOs w’ On wWadat. 
Il. pa tov Avoyvaov, ua tov ’AroANw, “yo wer oi, 
ua Tov Ala rov owrnpa, wa Tov ’AloxAnmov.! 
Servus Parmenon, terrified by his master Demeas, who threatens to 
flog him. 


91 K. ovK €otiv exTevs TOUTO, wa TOV ’AoKAnTLOY. 


Speaker unknown. 


The worship of Asclepius was not introduced into Athens until about 
the year 420 B. C.?. It is not surprising, therefore, that oaths by him are 
rare and late: there are none in the orators, none in Aristophanes, and 
only one in the Middle Comedy, viz. Alexis 163 K., speaker uncertain.* 
Perhaps the first appearance of the oath is in the famous formula which 


passages already cited (n. 25). Note esp. Men. 748 K. and Pk. 421 o7égavoy 
amo Buw|uov tival adedov érvHecbar BovNowar, where perhaps some other word 
than t.va should be supplied. On this last passage see Weil, JS. (1900), 51; 
Olivieri |.c.; Holzinger, Bursian’s Jahrb. (1903), 320; Kretschmar, 96, 103; Capps. 

1 Lef. 

2 Korte, MAT. XVIII (1893), 246 ff., cleverly restored I G. II 1649, frg. a, 1. 10, 
found on the site of the Asclepieium: otrws tépv@n [ro tepoly rode arayv ert 
|’Acrudil|do apxovros, 420 B.C. 

Outside limits had already been recognized: after 422, cf. Arist. Vesp. 122; 
before 406, year of the death of Sophocles, traditionally associated with the cult 
of Asclepius (cf. Preller-Robert, 521, and n. 2; Alice Walton, Cult of Asklepios 
[1894], 29 f.; Deneken in Roscher I 2537 f.). The novelty of the theme gave point 
to much of the satire of the god in Arist. Pl. (1st ed. 408, 2nd 388). Pl. Cur. (the 
Greek original of which Hiiffner, De Plauti comoediarum exemplis Alticis quaes- 
tiones maxime chronologicae, diss. Géttingen [1894], 18 f., 72, dated 310-9), tells us 
nothing, as its scene is laid at Epidaurus. 

3 None, also, in Plautus or Terence. 


2, STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Hippocrates is said to have ordained that all physicians should swear: 
"Aro\Awva intpov kal “AokAnmuoy Kal ‘Tyievay cal Havaxecav kal Oeovs mavras 
Te Kal maoas.’ 

In Menander the strong negation wa tov ’AokAnmiov occurs three 
times. From 91 K., as speaker and context are unknown, nothing can 
belearned as to the character of the oath.® In each of the other two pas- 
sages, Pk. 146, S. 95, a slave, cowering before his master’s well-founded 
suspicion and threats, stoutly affirms his innocence. In the second pas- 
sage Parmenon calls upon Dionysus, Apollo, Zeus Soter, and Asclepius 
in what seems climactic order. Asclepius, therefore, is summoned, not 
as the god of medicine, but as the guardian from all bodily harm what- 
soever, in which aspect he was commonly worshipped with the epithet 
Lwrnp.! 

OATHS BY APHRODITE. 


K. 263 olmw yap avop’ jnoew Ti éort—xal mada, 
ua thy ’Adpodirnyv— 
Meretrix Habrotonon would convince the incredulous Onesimus of 
her recent innocence. 


Pk. 413 Il. xareyédXa y’ Epov; 
A. pa thy Adpodirny, add’ évedvero orodn?, 
6 TaTnp ereeNnrace. 
Ancilla Doris assures Polemon that Glycera is preparing to come back 
to him. 


Lovers, whether male or female, or women engaged in the arts of love, 
were the chief persons who swore by the goddess of love. The oath 
occurs chiefly on the lips of women;! and in Menander, of women only. 


4 Hippocrates, ed. Littré (1844) IV. 628, cf. Ermerins, ed. (1864), Praefat. XIV; 
Lasaulx, 206 f. (ef. 180, n. 14); Ziebarth, 34. 

5 ““Obscurum est’’ Meinhardt, 48. 

6 As to the quadruple form of the oath, cf. p. 19. 

7 Cf. Prell.-Rob. 524 f.; Thrimer, P.-W. II 1655 f., 1677, with bibl. 

1Schol. Arist. Eccl. 999, schol. Pl. 1069. Cf. Meinhardt, 59 ff., 70, 78; Ziebarth, 
13; Lasaulx, n. 14. Arrian Cyneg. 35. 2: of 6€ dudt Ta Epwrixa “Adpodity (Hou- 
ow). Eugraphius ad Ter. Hun. I 2 (Klotz [1838], I 409 f.): 


“Menander aperte dicit meretrices Jjuxta domum suam vel in atrio solitas habere aram Veneris 
vulgariae cui quotidie sacrificarent.”’ 
The members of the Achaean league swore by Zeus Amaris, Athena Amaria, and 
Aphrodite, cf. Dittenberger, Syll.2 No. 229. 6f. (Ziebarth, 20; Usener, 21.) In Latin 
comedy, there is only one oath by Venus, that of Stephanium ancilla, Stich. 742. 


OATHS Peps 


E. 263, the meretrix Habrotonon swears vehemently by the goddess of 
love that she was a virgin only a year before; and Pk. 413, the slave-girl 
with a similar affirmation assures Polemon that the lady of his heart is 
about to return to him. 


OATHS BY GE. 


Pk. 448 Ilar. Tw yap viw AauBarvw 
Thy Tov Pudrivou Ouyarep. JN 


Adulescens Moschion, in surprise.! 


de dhe Sts} a In: Tl ronow 
Context and speaker uncertain. 


The oath by the earth goddess, Gé, was among the most binding 
which any Homeric god or hero could swear.? In later literature,* where 
this goddess is invoked, it is not always easy to tell whether the speaker 
is praying or swearing, nor whether the goddess as a person is clearly dis- 
tinguished from the element.‘ The oath by any of the elements was, in 
early times, peculiarly sacred to the gods and hence to mortals.? It is a 
question how far the Greeks of the fourth and fifth centuries felt, even 
unconsciously, the subtle distinctions which modern students of com- 
parative religions have tried to draw. A Greek sometimes swore by the 
earth, perhaps, because it was the first thing that occurred to him;° and 


1 Cf. p. 24. 

2 71. 15. 36, 19. 259, Od. 5. 184; ef. the Trojan sacrifice to Gé and Helios, Il. 3. 103. 

3 ua THY nv: Strato 1. 41, 47 K., Theoph. 2 K., Anaxil. 9 K., Ephipp. 11 K.; 
pa ynv: Antiph. 296 K. = Timocl. 38 K., Arist. Av. 194; mpos yas: Epicr. 11. 7 
K.; rps THs yns: Arist. Nub. 366: & yn: Arist. Nub. 364; & yn Kat Beol: Nicost. 
5 K., adesp. 3 K., Aristaen. Ep. 2. 20, p. 170 Herch., Demos. 18. 139, 158, 294, 19. 
987, 311, 22. 78, 55. 28. Cf. Aesch. 3. 137, 260, IG. TX 412; CIG. 538, 539, Aesch. 
Choeph. 127, Heliod. 231. 11, Soph. O. C. 1654. Oaths by Zeus, Gé, and Helios: 
Usener, 18 f., by Gé and Helios, 330 f. Cf. oath of Demeas senez, Ter. Adelph. 
790 ‘‘O caelum, o terra, o maria Neptuni;’’ of Stasimus servus, Pl. Trin. 1070 
‘Cmare, terra, caelum, di vestram fidem”’ and of Horace, Hp. 17. 30, ““O mare et 
terra.’”’ V. Aen. 12. 176, Aeneas swears: Esto nune sol testis et haee mihi Terra 
vocanti,’’ ete., to which, v. 197, Latinus replies: “terram mare sidera iuro,”’ etc. 
Ovid, Trist. 2. 53, ‘Per mare, per terras, per tertia numina iuro.”’ 

4 Meinhardt, 66, classes it among oaths by things, but see Drexler in Roscher, 
I 1569 ff.; Welcker, I 327; Ziebarth, 7; Prell.-Rob. 635; Farnell, Cults of the Greek 
States, III (1907), 2 ff. 

5 Wilamowitz, ad Eur. Her. 858; Ziebarth lL.c. 

6 Cf. schol. Arist. Av. 194; Suid. s.v. val wa 70; Meinhardt, 66. 


24 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


sometimes, doubtless, because Gé, the personal goddess, might be ex- 
pected from the nature of her worship at Athens,’ to serve his interests 
in the matter at issue. Here as elsewhere convention and usage doubt- 
less exerted their influence. 

In Menander at the very end of the Oxyrynchus fragment of the Peri- 
ceiromene, v. 51, an oath by this goddess occurs, which the English edi- 
tors excellently restored according to a well-known formula, & In [kai 
Geoi] (cf.n. 3). Unfortunately we do not know with certainty who 
speaks this half-line. I believe with Wilamowitz, GGA. (1900), 33, 
that the speaker cannot be Glycera, as the first editors supposed, for 
there is no sure example of this oath by the earth-goddess in the mouth of 
awoman. But as between Polemon and Moschion,$ we face the dilemma 
whether to reject the explicit stage-tradition, oXéuwy eicecor, or to 
think that Pataecus would say 7@ vie of his son, when none were present 
save that son and his daughter, Glycera. Very possibly the manuscript 
note has been misplaced, from its proper position in the middle of the 
next line. Such a supposition is easier than to assume with Wilamowitz 
that the editor of the papyrus roll made a blunder and wrote “ Pole- 
mon”’ for “Glycera.”’ Or perhaps Polemon starts to go in, but does 
not enter until he has heard Pataecus’ reasons for declining to join in 
the proposed sacrifice. As Polemon goes in, Moschion who has been 
eaves-dropping through all the scene and is surprised at the marriage 
plans his father has suddenly conceived for him,* utters the oath, in an 
aside. This was always an oath of great intensity, either of extreme 
indignation or of great joy.!° Kauer was entirely right in declaring that 
the brother (i.e. Moschion) was the only person who had reasons for 
giving such strong vent to his feelings; though it is not altogether clear 
whether his dominant emotion was of pain or of pleasure. 

As for the appropriateness of the oath on this occasion, apart from 
Kretschmar’s prepossession that the speaker is Polemon, I can scarcely 
add anything to his commentary, p. 104: 


7 Cf. Welcker, I 321, Drexler in Roscher, I 1573, Prell.-Rob. 636. 

5 Kauer, WSt. XXVI (1904), 206 f. suggested that the speaker was Pataecus’ 
son; cf. Capps (also Rees, CIPh. V [1910], 296) whose interpretation of this passage 
I have largely followed. 

° The theory (Leeu. 76; Schmidt, Herm. XLIV [1909], 444 n. 1; Gerhard, Phil. 
LXTIX [1910], 33) that Moschion has had opportunity to tell his father of his love 
for Philinus’ daughter I consider untenable. There are other examples of a mar- 
riage arranged for a young fellow without his knowledge and against his desire, 
viz. Men. Georgos, Ter. Andr. 236 ff., Heaut. 1056 ff. 

10 Kithnlein, 30. Cf. passages, n. 3. 


cr 


OATHS Dd 


“Terra enim, dea non solum fertilitatis agrorum sed etiam omnis abundantiae 
auctrix, nomine Kovporpodos adpellabatur™ (cf. Roscher I 1570) ac cum fiebant 
nuptiae in mpoTeAelots quae vocant implorabantur ut coniuges augeret liberis 
quam plurimis, cf. Sch6mann-Lipsius, IT 584.12 Neque est cur non hie quoque, 
praesertim cum de nuptiis ac re divina facienda modo actum sit, simili notione 
et simili sententiarum ordine illius deae mentio sit facta.’’ 


The simple oath & I'n occurs in J. I. 58. The papyrus at this place is 
so very badly broken that it is useless to conjecture or argue concerning 
the usage of the oath. We can see, however, that it expresses bewilder- 
ment, as in Arist. Nub. 364, and as do, on occasion, the other voca- 
tive oaths. 


OATHS BY DEMETER. 


Pk. 255 ovk 016 6 TL 
AEyw, wa THY Anuntpa, TARY aTayEoua. 
Miles Polemon in despair because Glycera has left him. 


E. 507 “A. alrns yap, ok addOTpiov. X. Ei yap wdeder. 
‘A. [pp ry]! bidnv Anunrpa. 
Meretrix Habrotonon brings Charisius good news: the child is his 
wife’s, and not a bastard. 


Demeter was worshipped in Attica at two great festivals which were 
very different in character: as Oecpuodopos, according to the usual in- 
terpretation? the goddess of lawful marriage, at the Thesmophoria, a 
festival to which only married women of good birth were admitted; as 
’EXevowia with her daughter Kopy or Hepoedovn at the Eleusinian mys- 


1 Suid. (ef. Hesych.) s.v. Koupotpodos; Etym.M. 529. 50 s.v. kopeoOnvar; Arist. 
Thesm. 300; Od. 10. 27; Eur. Tro. 566; cf. Prell.-Rob. l.c.; Farnell, III 17. 

12 Procl. in Tim. 293 c, cf. Welcker, I 327. 

1 Head., Hense. 

2 Bloch, Roscher, II 1329 f.; Kern, P.-W. IV 2750f.; ef. Welcker, II 495f., 
Prell.-Rob. 777 f., Schém.-Lip. I11 503 f. But Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, 
III 75-112, perhaps rightly concludes that the Thesmophoria had nothing to do 
with the ordinances of the state or of human marriage, and that the Two God- 
desses were merely goddesses of fertility and vegetation and of the lower world. 
See p. 27 n. 12. 

3 Arist. Thesm. esp. 329 ff. Cf. Prell.-Rob. 778; Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen 
im Altertum (1898), 315 f. If unmarried women were ever admitted to the festival 
it was probably only as spectators, cf. Luc. Dial. mer. 2. 1; Strabo 1. 3. 20; Frazer, 
Encycl. Britt. XXIII° (1888), 296; Farnell, III 84. Jane Harrison, Prologom. Study 
Gr. Rel. (1903), 121, 131, takes the opposite view. 


26 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


teries,t to which were admitted the initiate of both sexes and all ages.° 
At the latter place she was honored, not as the goddess of the piousfarmer, 
nor of the most intimate life of women, but as the goddess of human life 
in its widest aspects (Kern l.c.). 

Corresponding to these two forms of the worship of the goddess, the 
oaths taken in her name may be divided into two classes, those employed 
by women and those by men. Men swore by Demeter as the goddess of 
the mysteries, and especial patroness of Athens.” An attempt has been 
made® to show that old men more than young men had an especial fond- 
ness for this oath, but there is not sufficient evidence to warrant any such 
differentiation. In Menander there is one masculine oath by Demeter, 
viz. Pk. 255, on the lips of the soldier Polemon, whom Agnoia, v. 9. calls 
veavioxos. Probably it would be fanciful to draw any conclusions from 
the fact that Polemon is thinking of suicide, a subject in which the god- 
dess of the Eleusinian mysteries might be supposed to take aninterest. 

Women swear by Demeter alone, only after the time of Aristophanes, 
and even then rarely.!° For some obscure reason this oath seems never 
in the extant literature to have been used by a free-born Athenian wo- 
man.!! One would suppose that it would be used first of all by matrons 
of respectability, who alone were admitted to the rites of Demeter 
Oecuodopos; and that from them its use would spread to other classes 
of women. Nor, would it have seemed remarkable, on the other hand, 
that an Eleusinian initiate, even though a woman, should swear by 
Demeter, the chief of the Eleusinian deities, as indeed it was the custom 
of women to swear by the two Eleusinian deities together under the 
form v7 (ua) tw bew. However this may be, I suspect that modern 


4 Welcker II, 511 ff., Prell.-Rob. 790 ff., Bloch, 1337 f., Kern, 2736 f., Schém.- 
Lip. 387 ff. 

5 Arist. Hleusin. (Dind. I 415), Arist. Ran. 409-412, Demos. 59. 1351, Theoph. 
1 K., Schom.-Lip. 403 f., Farnell, III 155. 

6 Cf. Welcker, II 525; Meinhardt, 53 f.; Ziebarth, 9, 11. 

7 raTpios Tov ’APnvatwy 7 Anunrnp schol. Arist. Eg. 698, cf. Meinhardt 1.c. 
Demeter was one of the deities by whom the Heliasts swore, cf. s.v. Apollo, n. 9. 

8 Fritzsche ad Arist. Thesm. 517, Welcker, 525, Ziebarth, 11. 

9 The only example in Plautus or Terence is Bacch. 892, where Ceres is one of the 
seventeen deities invoked by Chrysalus seryus. 

10 As follows: ancilla, Antiph. 25 K.; meretrices, Philipp. 5. 4 K., Luc. Dial. 
mer. 3. 314, Mach. com. ap. Athen. 13. 580 b; femina procax, Aesclepiad. Anth. 
Pal. 5. 150; matrona, Heron. 1. 69; lena, id. 1. 86. Cf. Meinhardt, 53 f.; Ziebarth, 
Wil. 

1 Cf. Meinhardt l.c. It might be used by a married woman of character, though 
of low birth, at least, at places other than Athens,—e.g., Cos, ef. Heron. 1. 69. 


OATHS Dil 


explanations of the oath, v7 (ua) 7nv Anunrpa, have been warped by the 
accidental character of the few examples which we have. Women, espe- 
cially free-born Athenian women, appear so little in the Greek literature 
of oaths that it is hazardous in this case to argue from purely negative 
evidence. The possibility should be admitted, in my opinion, that 
Athenian matrons even of the fifth century may have sworn by 
Demeter. 

Only once in Menander does a woman use this oath, and she is not a 
matron but a meretrix. In E. 507, Habrotonon swears to Charisius v7 
Thy pirnv Anuntpa. It is noteworthy that she is speaking on a theme 
in which the goddess of lawful marriage (?) might well be interested, the 
legitimacy of Charisius’ child; but in view of the general uncertainty of 
usage,!? I cannot press this suggestion. For the epithet of Demeter used 
in this oath, Hense, BpbhW. XX VIII (1908), 414, has noted as parallels 
Antiph. 25 K. and Philipp. 5; to which might be added Heron. 1. 69, 
Mach. ap. Athen. 13. 580b. Cf. the invocation of the goddess, Arist. 
Thesm. 286, d€orowa rodvtiunte Anunrep didn; and Eur. Phoen. 684-686 
dita Aauarnp bea, TavTwv dvacoa. The donkey in the tale of Babrius 
129 (Rutherford) grinds the wheat ¢idns Anunrpos. didn was there- 
fore an epithet commonly applied to Demeter. But from the earliest 
times it was frequently used with the names of other deities also. It 
implied originally, one would assume, a peculiar mutual relation of long 
standing protection and trust. Like all such epithets it might, and fre- 
quently did, become a mere convention. By Menander’s time the phrase 
gitn Anunrnp doubtless was somewhat stereotyped; though it was 
entirely appropriate as used by Habrotonon. 


12 None other of the passages has to do with legitimate wedlock. In Philipp. 
5. 4 K., Meinhardt may have surmised correctly that Demeter is invoked as the 
goddess of sustenance (cf. schol. ad Arist. Nwb. 121). So also, perhaps, Heron. 
1. 86. Faithfulness in love is suggested: Aesclepiad. l.c., Heron. 1. 69. In Mach. 
l.c., there is no evident appropriateness in the oath: it is a colorless, though strong, 
asseverative in the mouth of a woman. So, perhaps, Antiph. 25 K. Lue. Le. @ 
Aduatep is explained by Meinhardt, 54, as ‘‘admirantis adverbium,”’ according 
to the distinction drawn between @ Aauartep and @ Anunrep, proper vocative, by 
Phot. and Suid. s.v. ‘HpaxXers; Eustath. 1385. 53; schol. Arist. Pl. 555. But Lo- 
beck, Phryn. 640, has shown that there are cases in this class of words where ac- 
tual usage, according to our manuscripts, at least, did not conform to the rules set 
down by the grammarians. Perhaps in this passage, where the theme of conversa- 
tion is fidelity in love, the figure of Demeter, goddess of lawful marriage, is still 
felt in the oath. 

13 T note in Bruchmann: Athena (esp. @iATaTn), Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, 
Dionysus, Hermes, Eros, etc. @ @idou feoi is the oath of an unknown speaker 
429 K., cf. p. 13. 


28 STUDIES IN MENANDER 
OATHS BY THE TWO GODDESSES. 


E. 326 O. add’ od xapis Tis, ‘ABporovoy, ToUTwY Euol; 
A. yh T@® Dew? ravTwy y’ EuauTn oc’ altvov 
NYNTOMAL TOUTWY. 
Meretrix Habrotonon solemnly assures Onesimus that he will not be 
forgotten in the day of success. 


G. 24 Kal, vy Tw OE, 
éywy’ a&Kovove’, @ TEKVOV, uLKpoU dew || 
— eiTelv 60a Ppove. 
Anus! Philinna, addressing Myrrhina, can scarcely restrain her indig- 
nation against the seducer. 


The peculiar feminine oath, at least at Athens,” as has been intimated, 
was 17) (ua) tw bev, by the two goddesses, Demeter and Core,’ who were 
worshipped together by the Athenians both at the Eleusinia and at the 
Thesmophoria.* Since the Thesmophoria was entirely a feminine 
festival, and since Demeter with her divine daughter was the especial 
patron of women, it was fitting that women alone should use this oath. 
The passages which Meinhardt cites seem to indicate that it was used by 
all classes of women without distinction. 

In Menander there are two instances of this oath in the asseverative 
form v7 Tw bev, both in the mouths of slave women. In E. 326 the 


1Cf. Dziatzko, RhMus. LIV (1899), 507; Kretschmar, 23 f.; Kaibel, G6Nachr. 
(1898), 154. 

2 Perhaps this was meant by Hesych. s.v. wa TW Jew: ob wovov yuvaikes, aNAa 
Kal avopes @uvuov, as Ziebarth, 13, and Schémann-Lipsius, 277 n. 3, assumed; but 
such is hardly the natural interpretation of the words. It is easier to assume with 
Lobeck, Phryn. 194 (cf. Kretschmar, 27), that Hesychius or his informant is re- 
ferring to some passage in an Attic writer, where a man does use this oath, 
perhaps for comic effect. See Phryn. v7) Tw few: SpKos Yuvatkdos, OV pn avnp 
OmetTar el wy Yuvackifo.ro. From this oath must be distinguished the Spartan 
oath by the Dioscuri (v7 T® ow, Xen. Anab. 6. 6. 34; Arist. Lys. 81, 86, 90, ete. 
Cf. Meinhardt, 47 f.), and the Boeotian oath by Amphion and Zethus (Arist. 
Ach. 905, where see commentators). 

8 Arist. Eccl. 155 ff. with schol., schol. Luc. Dial. mer. 3. 296, Phot. s.v. ua Tw 
few, Phryn. l.c. Cf. schol. Arist. Pax 214; Welcker, II 532; Kihnlein, 1: Mein- 
hardt, 30, 54, 71, 78; Ziebarth, 12f.; Prell.-Rob. 747; Schém.-Lip. 277; Rutherford 
ad Phryn. l.c.; Croiset ad E. 326. 

4 Welcker, II 495 f., 511 f.; Schém.-Lip. 503; Mommsen, Feste, 196, 321; Kern, 
P.-W. 1V 2753f. The two goddesses are called Ta Oecuopopw in Arist. Thesm. 
282, 295; cf. 286 and Meinhardt, 54. 


OATHS 29 


meretrix Habrotonon uses it in what is merely a very solemn affirmation. 
G. 24 it is used by Philinna, whom we may suppose to be the aged nurse of 
Myrrhina, a slave, or, if freed, still dependent.’ The oath is very appro- 
priately used, for Philinna’s soul is filled with indignation at the wrong 
done Myrrhina’s daughter, a wrong at which the divine guardians of 
women would also be most indignant. 


OATHS BY DIONYSUS. 


S. 94 A. ovykpimrets Te mpos mw HOn Wada. 
Il. ya tov Avdvucoy, wa tov ’AroAAw, “yw pev od! 
ua Tov Alo rov owrnpa, wa Tov ’AloxAnmeov. 
Servus Parmenon, terrified by his master Demeas, who threatens to 
flog him. 


) 


‘a 


eS mufavov eivar det ovov— 
ee 


6, ua Tov Avovucoy, ov dvvamar Toe Ey. 


Adulescens Moschion fears he cannot play his réle convincingly. 


Dionysus was the god of wine, as every one knows. He was the patron 
of the arts, especially of the dramatic art?. In his honor were presented 
plays of both comedy and tragedy. His altar was to be seen in the orches- 
tra of every Greek theater. (Haigh, Attic Theater,?[1907], 107 f.) When- 
ever a comic actor swears by him, without clearly referring to him as the 
wine-god, one is tempted to think of Dionysus as the patron of the fes- 
tival at which the comedy may have been given. It is a temptation to 
which the scholiasts ad Arist. Nub. 108, ad Pax 267 succumbed (cf. 
Ziebarth, 11), as well as Meinhardt? among the moderns. The oath is 
used by men only; and if one may judge from the prominence of the 
Dionysiac worship at Athens, as well as the use of the oath in Aristoph- 


2 (Chis yo, PAS) aay Ie 

UCfi. siv. Aipollo, n. 1. 

2 Cf. Welcker, II 576 f.; Voigt, Roscher, I 1075 f.; Prell.-Rob. 659 f., 669, 710 f. 

3 36 ff. Meinhardt was wrong, of course, in including among the oaths by Diony- 
sus Arist. Ach. 267 f.: @ Avovuce d€o7r0Ta is the beginning of a prayer to the god 
of the country Dionysia; cf. Ziegler, De praecationum apud Graecos formis quaes- 
tiones selectae, diss. Breslau (1905), 29. On the other hand Meinhardt might well 
have written a fuller commentary on Arist. Vesp. 1474, where the oath is very 
plainly uttered by the god of the wine and of the drama, as the lines following 
show. Ziebarth, 6 (criticizing Kiihnlein 29), 9, 11, has maintained a sane attitude 
toward this oath. 


30 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


anes,* it was probably a form of oath in common use among Athenians of 
the lower classes.*° It does not seem probable that an actor on the stage 
playing a genre-part would use a form of oath which the character he 
portrayed would not naturally use in daily life. While the altar and fes- 
tival of Dionysus might in part suggest the oath by that god, still every 
such oath should be appropriate in itself, or it would sound artificial or 
affected in the Athenian ear. Of course, this remark does not apply to 
the language of the chorus speaking for the poet, who may well call upon 
the patron deity of the festival to give him victory over his rival poets ;° 
but it does apply to the dialogue of the actors. 

The oath wa rov Avovvcov occurs twice in Menander, both times in 
the mouths of men. The first time is in that quadruple oath of Parmenon 
S. 94 to which reference is made elsewhere (pp. 17, 19, 22, and 38). 
Besides Dionysus, who is first(?) in order, Apollo, Zeus Soter, and Ascle- 
pius are invoked. As Parmenon seeks to avert a beating, and as Apollo 
and Asclepius, as well as Zeus Soter, are gods who avert ill (cf. discussion 
l.c.),it is probable that Dionysus is conceived under similar attributes. 
There is evidence to show that Dionysus was actually worshipped as 
savior or liberator, not merely from cares (Avo.pepimvos, vaizovos), 
from physical bondage, and from sickness (iatpds, bycarns), but from 
all ills whatever (cwrnp).7 So the conclusion drawn from the associa- 
tion of Dionysus with other gods, known to be averters of ill, is made 
certain: Parmenon swears by Dionysus also, because he can save him if 
he will. 

Perhaps it is by this same Dionysus that the young man Moschion 
swears in 8. 323, where he fears that he will not be successful in deceiv- 
ing his father. But very possibly, also, Moschion calls upon Dionysus 
not only to avert the ills he fears, but as the patron of the arts, and 
especially of the speaking art, to loosen his tongue® and make him 
persuasive. 


4 Cf. Meinhardt l.c. for citations. This oath occurs but once in the orators, 
Aesch. 1. 52 (Kiihnlein, 36). It does not occur in Latin comedy. 

’ Schol. Arist. Pax 267 refers to Dionysus as olkeiw Oem . . . THs ATTUKNS. 

6 Arist. Nub. 519 with schol.; cf. Meinhardt, 37. 

7 Cf. Gruppe, Miiller’s Hdb. V 2. 1482 n. 3: Dionysus Soter, a bronze coin of 
Maroneia (ca. 400-350 B.C.) (Miiller-Wieseler, Denkméler der antiken Kunst II 
[1860], XXXII 357 = Head, Historia Numorum [1887], 217 fig. 160); Lycophr. 
206; Nicet. Eugen. Dros. et Char. 7. 209; adeEnrnp, Nonn. Dionys. 33. 232, 7. 96 
and ade&ixaxos, id. 7. 176, 29. 90, 32. 118, 45. 52. 

8 Plut. Quaest. conv. 613 c, refers to the freedom of speech that comes with wine, — 
hardly that which Moschion means. 


OATHS 31 
OATHS BY ZEUS. 


EK. 138 ov yvaoou’ eivar, ua Al’, eyw 
Tov vUY adtKovVYTos, Tov BonfovyTos dé Kal 
> / os 9 ~ , ' 
émeELOVTOS TW AdLKELY MEANOVTL GoL. 


Senex Smicrines awards the foundling to Syriscus. 


Se: 7, Aa. ov Xatpéa TO mpwrov e&edwxarTe 
Thv maiwa; <A. pa Ala. 


Senex (K6rte) discusses with Laches the marriage of the girl. 


Rey 274 IIodX. adda Ti Pepw viv eis wecov 
TO meyebos, EuBpovtytos, Urep GAAwY AaAaV; 
Ilar. pwa tov Al’, ovdev. 


Senex Pataecus encourages Polemon. 


249.4 K. GAN’ Exeivos pnud TL 
epbeyEar’ oldev Eudepes, wa Tov Aia, 
Tw yvob. cavTov. 


Unknown man of Monimus, the Syracusan Cynic. 


Pk. 190 DL. worepa vouiver’ ovK ExELY Nuas XOAR?, 
ovd’ avdpas eivar; A. vat, pa Ala, tlerpw]Bd[Aous.! 


Servus Davus reviles Sosias. 


Pk. 127 M. os oxvnpas pou rpocepxer, Aae. A. vai, wa tov Aia’ 
TavU yap aToTws. 


Servus Davus reports to Moschion the failure of his mission. 


Blase LEG Kal Bavouar 
Kal mapatidovmar, vy Ala, Kal yevnoouar 
Krnoirmos, ovk avOpwros. 


Unknown man speaking. 


G. 34 ®, rid) Huiv, eire por, 
Tovrou méedet; M. xadov y’ ay ein, v7 Ala. 


Matrona Myrrhina? (Kretsch., Kor.) prays for a turn of fortune. 


1 Capps (q.v.) Sud., vai (Jensen) for un (Lef. Kor.) removes an asyndeton 
quite without parallel. 

2 Kaibel, GONachr. (1898), 157 n. 8, thinking the oath unworthy of a matron, 
deleted the mark of change of speaker before kadov. But this colorless oath was 
used by respectable women, e.g., Arist. Eccl. passim, esp. 550 ff. Cf. p. 35. 


32 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 149 TUXOV NOS ki none Wl Pe evasion 
TpoTepoy eldévar o, akovoa Ta Tapa cov ye, v1) Ala. 
Servus Davus tries to cover with an oath his lie to Moschion. 
S. 385 M. €ére Aadets, otros; Il. Badifw, vy Al’, eLevpynxa re 
meya KaKov. 
Servus Parmenon apparently yields to Moschion’s threats. 
S. 341 yéXovos Ecomar, vy Al’, avaxdurtwv radu. 
Adulescens Moschion foresees the failure of his plans. 
Hes IE IES, Tl TOTO, Tat; draxovixws yap, vn Ala, 
mTpoeAndvbas. 
Speaker uncertain.’ 


lah sys ] Epws ye vy At’, @ ybvac’ 


H: 60 ] vm At’, eb y’, & Muppivy. 
Adulescens Phidias (Capps) to Myrrhina. 


Joe 19 evKarpos 7AOe, vy Aia, 
Senex Laches (?). 
G. 63 A. avéorno’ abtov éripmedovmevos. 
M. xadov réxvov. A. vy tov AU, eb 670’ ovTosi. 


Servus Davus affirms to Myrrhina the truth of his tale. 


Pk AZ vy tov Al’, dp0es yap NEyers 6 Set Toetp. 
Miles Polemon approves the plan of Doris. 
S. 203 Nu. @ Tay, otxeTat 
Tav, Ta TpayuMaT avaTéTpaTTat, TedXos Exe. A. vy <TOv> Aia.* 
Senex Demeas, in an aside, assents to Niceratus’ parting words. 
Heauton. fr. ex Epaphrodite tav “Adnou xwpiwy 
KEKTNMEVOS KANALOTOV El, vn TOV Aia. 
Senex (Chremes?) to comrade (Menedemus?), cf. Ter. Heauton, I 1. 
S. 296 vy tov Ala Tov peyroTov, avonrov TE Kal 
eUKaTappovntov Epyov elu’ elpyacMevos. 


Servus Parmenon chides himself. 


3 ““Ipsius Onutoupyou verba,’’ Mein., doubtful. 
4 7ov inserr. Cron., Herw., Leo, Wil. 


OATHS 33 


Oi a6 vy tov Ata® rov peyrorov extvpnoomac. 
Matrona? (Panegyris or Pamphila? Plaut. Stich. 5, 19, 20, cf. 
Ritschl, Parerga, 274 f.) 


Fy eh \ 
AQ2. a Kk. eit éoTl TO 
ppvayua tws Vrootatov; ua Tov® Aia 
Tov ‘Odvprov kat thv “A@nvar, oldayas. 


“‘ Maritus senex,”’ Gell., N. Att. 2. 23. 8 ad h.l. 


569 K. I'\vukepa, Te KAaets; Ouvia gor Tov Aia 
tov “OdNvutov Kal THY ’AOnvav, didrarn, 
OMWMOKAS Kal TpOTEpOV On TOANAKLS. 


Miles Polemon(?) soothes his mistress (Capps, cf. p. 14 n. 3). 


ke Boks pn 6) yevour’, & Zev rodulrivynr’? 
Senex Pataecus still believes in Glycera. 


Sele @ Zev modutiund’, oidv €or’ EAXmis KaKOV. 


Unknown speaker. 


848 K.8 @ Lev rodvutivy—’, ws Kadal vey at yuval. 


Unknown man speaking. 


S. 95 A. ovykpirrtes Te TpOs mM’ On Tada. 
Il. pa rov Avdvucorv, wa Tov ’AmodAw, “yo ev oi, 
pa Tov Ala Tov gwrnpa, wa TOV ’AloxAnmuov. 
Servus Parmenon terrified by his master Demeas, who threatens to 
flog him. 


E. 142 den y’ 7 Kplots, 
vy tov Aia tov owT7p’. 


Servus Davus protests against Smicrines’ award. 


5 ua cod. Monacensis 560, tov om. cod. Marcianus 471. 

6 wa Tov added Heringa, Observ. (1747), 252 (and Grotius, according to Mein. and 
Kock, but not in Excerpta e tragicis et comicis Graecis [1626], 741, to which Mein. 
refers). 

T Lef. 

Sapa piunepuvw ms.; Miuvepuw Cramer, ad Anecd. Ox, I 102. 7; Mevavipw 
Mein. 


34 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 336 mwémov0a Tt 
vn tov Ata rolv? cwrnp’. 
Adulescens Moschion, in an aside (Sud., Capps)?®. 
E. 486 Zev owrep, €imep €or dvvatov, owle pe. 


Servus Onesimus fears punishment for his own officiousness. 


me ’ \ » 
536. 7 K. avamvony EXEL 
se gly = ins a SR VAG Ra 2 j ” 
Zev owrep” eivety avTeéxov TaY cxoLViwy. 


Nautae in distress. 


532. 2 K. Kal TOUTOV Nuas TOV TpOTOY yamely edEL 
amavras, ® Zev owtep, ws wvovueba. 
Senex, who has a marriageable daughter. 
54 K. apTUpouar Tov didvovy, @ Kpatwr, Aia. 


Speaker unknown. 


The oath by Zeus is one of the oldest in Greek literature. Achilles JI. 
23. 43 swears od wa Zr’, dors te Oe@v braros kal dpioros. It is a very 
solemn oath in the mouth of Telemachus, Od. 20. 339." Because he was 
the chief of the gods and, as Zebs dpxios, the especial guardian of oaths 
and avenger of perjury,’ he was probably invoked more frequently than 
any other god. In the orators® and the writers of comedy, who reflect 
the language of the average Athenian, the simple formulae v7 (rov) Ata, 
ua (tov) Aia have quite lost all color as oaths, but serve merely as assev- 
eratives, and sometimes, through their very repetition, as very weak 
asseveratives,’—much as the corresponding oaths in modern vulgar 
usage have become very weak. This loss of strength is a penalty which 
all oaths pay for their constant repetition;!® but no Greek oaths paid the 


® Crois. 

10 Pataecus, Lef., Kor., Rob.; Glycera, Leeu. 

11 Cf. Schréder (1859), 12; swpra p. 14, and n. 7. 

2 Cf. M. H. E. Meier, Graeci quanta levitate fidem mutaverint, index sch. Halle 
(1830), 4; Kiihnlein, 27; Prell.-Rob. 151; Schém.-Lip. 277; Gruppe, Miiller’s Hdb. 
V 2. 1116. 

13 Cf. Kiihnlein, 51 ff., Rehdantz l.c., Ott, 48 f. 

14 Reisig, Cont. ad Arist. II (1816), 256, ad Vesp. 254; Meinhardt, 19 f.; Ott, 44. 

15 Cf. Schréder (1859), 9 f., 12; Kiihnlein, 50; Ott, 11, 21. 

16 On the frequent use of oaths by the Greeks, their frequent violation, and the 
consequent disrepute which Greek reliability suffered esp. among the Romans, 
ef. Lasaulx, 200 ff.; H. Heumann; Meier; L. Schmidt, II 3 ff.; Ziebarth, 6; Schém.- 
Lip. 282 f.; Dummler, 5 f.; Stengel, 79 f.; Hirzel, 79 ff. Anotherinfluence in the 


OATHS 3D 


penalty more dearly than the oath by the greatest of the gods. Only 
through the addition of some particular epithet, e.g., "Odbpros, Swrnp, 
6 weyoros, did the oath gain a certain solemn character (Ziebarth, 7), 
subject, of course, to the ever-recurring process of weakening. 

In the fragments of Menander there are thirty-three oaths by Zeus. 
Apparently all classes of persons without distinction swore by him:!7 


Men: senes 8 instances 
servi 9 
milites 2, 
adulescentes 4 
nautae 1 
incerti 4 
Total, 28 
Women: Matronae 2 
Total, 2 
Sex uncertain: 3 
Total, 3 


As we should expect, the oaths with the accusative of the name of the 
god, accompanied sometimes by the article, but without any epithet, are 
the most frequent: ua Ala (2), ua rov Ata (2), vai wa Ala (1), val wa rov 
Ata (1), vm Ata (10), v7 rev Aia (3). In every instance they are simple 


weakening of oaths was the growing disbelief in the gods, cf. Heumann, 16 f.» 
Hirzel, 87 f. However, the traditional reverence for the oath long persisted, ef. 
Eur. 1030 N.; Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, I (1896), 70; Greenough, The Relig- 
ious Condition of the Greeks at the Time of the New Comedy, Harv. Stud. X (1899), 
141-180, esp. 142 ff. Note S. 96, Demeas’ reproof of Parmenon, who has just utter- 
ed that terrific oath by Dionysus, Apollo, Zeus Soter and Asclepius: ‘‘ Hold on 
now, don’t swear by any of the gods’’: wav, unéev’ (Nic., cf. Hense, BohW. XXIX 
[1909], 365) duvv. 

17 Tn Plautus and Terence: servi: Amph. 435, Bacch. 892, Andr. 732, Poen. 869, 
Eun. 946; adulescentes: Men. 615, 655, 1025, Capt. 426, Men. 811, Eun. 1048 (?), 
550, Heaut. 690, Hecyr. 317, Eun. 709; senes: Merc. 762, Trin. 447, Aul. 761, Pseud. 
514, Phorm. 807, Andr. 464, Adelph. 731, 757, Heaut. 630, Phorm. 816, Adelph. 111, 
366; milites: Poen. 1325; lenones: Adelph. 196. Also comically, Jupiter by him- 
self, Amph. 933. 


36 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


formulae of negation or affirmation, quite devoid of juratory color. The 
frequent omission of the article in these oaths wa (Tov) Aia, vn (ror) Ata 
is further evidence of their weakness, for in Menander, as with few 
exceptions elsewhere,!® oaths with wa and v7, when accompanying the 
names of gods other than Zeus, never fail to take the article. 

Zeus, as the supreme god, is expressly invoked in a formula v7 rov Ata 
Tov meyeorov'? which occurs twice in Menander: 8S. 296, in the mouth of 
the slave Parmenon, and 505 K., in the mouth of a matron (?). This epi- 
thet of Zeus is very common in the Greek poets (ef. Bruchmann). In 
this particular oath it is found in Timocl. 22 K., Philem. 196 K. (Mein- 
hardt, 19), and in the negative form pa rov Ala rov péyrorov in ps. De- 
mos. 48. 2.2° The vocative & Zev weyrore occurs several times in Xen. 
Cyrop., viz. 5. 1. 29, 6. 3. 11,6. 4. 9, 7.1.3 (Memhardt, 18; 22). Invall 
these passages, as in the Menander passages, the oath is a strong one, 
deriving its sanctity from the greatest of the gods, the especial guardian 
of oaths. Perhaps it is not entirely fanciful to suggest that Parmenon 
may have felt at least dimly the power of Zeus as savior from trouble 
(owrnp, cf. Preller-Robert, 151) and giver of freedom (édevbepios, ibid.) ; 
while the matron weeping for her absent lord may have felt it appro- 
priate to call upon the deliverer from perils by sea (cwrnp) and the 
guardian of married life (fiyros, yaunduos, Terexos, cf. Preller-Robert, 147). 

The oath by Zeus “the Olympian,”?! coupled with Athena, occurs in 
two passages, 402. 13 K., 569, which I have already discussed, s.v. Athena 
(ef. p. 15). In the first it is used by the unnamed old man (in the 
Plocium) and in the second instance by a lover (probably Polemon) to 
his mistress. This same oath is used by a parasite in Alex. 231 K. 
Strepsiades, Arist. Nub. 817, makes fun of Pheidippides for swearing by 
this god (Athena’s name omitted) (Meinhardt, 22). The genitive 
mpos tov Atos rovAvuriov occurs in Arist. Av. 130 (abid.). The ora- 


18 Meinhardt, 14, notes as exceptions: ua Beovs, wa Oeas Pl. Conv. 219 c: wa ynv, 
wa Tayloas, wa vederas, wa Oixtva Arist. Av. 194. Add vai Anuntpa Heron. 1. 86, 
and perhaps the comic oaths, Antiph. 296 = Timocl. 38, wa ynv, wa Kpnvas, ua 
TOTAMOUS, UA VapaTa. 

19 Cf. Prell.-Rob. 108, n. 3, 868; Usener, Gétternamen (1896), 348. 

20 That this oath occurs only here in Demosthenes and the Ten Orators confirms 
the suspicion already cast on the oration by Blass, Die Att. Beredsamkeit, III 
(1880), 499 (Kiihnlein, 33 f., 74, ef. 77). 

21 Cf. Prell.-Rob. 121 f.; Gruppe, passim (ef. index 1895), esp. 32, 1104n.1. The 
epithet is frequent in the poets, cf. Bruchmann; often with the name of the god 
omitted but clearly referring to Zeus (cf. Usener, Gétternamen, 217 f.). See also 
Pl. Rep. 583 b, Legg. 950 e (Meinhardt, 22). 


OATHS 37 


tors swear by the god of Olympus: Aesch. 1. 55, 1. 76, 1. 81 (?), 3. 255; 
Demos. 24. 121 (Kihnlein, 64 ff.). It is clear that the oath was fre- 
quently used by Athenians. When Zeus Olympius was coupled, as in 
Menander and Alexis, with Athena (Polias), the oath had peculiar sanc- 
tity, due, as I have already observed (l.c.), to the honor which the two 
divinities received at Athens. There seems to be no instance of its use 
by women. 

® Zev wodvtiuynre is a form of oath that oceurs thrice in Menander: 
Pk. 313, spoken by the old man Pataecus, as he calls upon heaven to 
avert a suggested evil; 351 K. 6 Zed roduriund’, oidv ear’ Edris Kaxdv, by 
an unknown speaker; 848, & Zev rodvutiund’, ds Kadal vev at yuvat by an 
unknown man,—both in exclamations of wonder. R. Férster® recog- 
nized this last passage as imitative of Arist. Eg. 1390: & Zev roduripn?’, 
ws kadai. One might compare also, Av. 667: & Zev rodvuriund’, ds Kadov 
Tovpvibtov, ws 6’ aadov, ws d€ NevKdv. And with 351, compare Arist. 319 K.: 


77 ~ , ’ ca peat aa e \ 

@ Zev moduTivn’, oiov everrvevo’ 6 pLapos 
t 

dackwdos KX. 


This oath is also an exclamation of surprise in Pherecr. 73 K. and 
Eubul.117. It is clear from these examples™ that it is rather an exclama- 
tion of wonder, surprise, or indignation than an oath proper. This is 
only what might be anticipated when one remembers the well-known 
exclamatory character of the simple oath & Zev”*: Arist. 67 K., Philet. 5, 
Pl. Conv. 222 e, Huthyd. 273 e, 294 a, Luc. Dial. mort. 1. 369; and the more 
elaborate Zev Baordev: Arist. Nub. 2, 153, Vesp. 625, Av. 223, Ran. 
1278, Pl. 1095. As for the epithet roduriunre, it is not peculiar to Zeus,”® 
but may be applied to any of the gods or all of them put together, ef. p. 
12. It is a term of honor, rather than a descriptive epithet. 

Zeus was also worshipped at Athens as Savior, rescuer from trouble, 
(owrnp).2” Oaths by this god are numerous in the comic poets from Aris- 


22 Note the surprise of Strepsiades, Arist. Nub. 366. 

23 Herm. XII (1877), 210. Cf. Hense, BpbhW. XXIX (1909), 355; Mein. I 111, 
358, I1 576. But many instances of such presumed imitation, e.g., Men. 848 K. 
= Arist. Eq. 1390, are probably mere coincidences due to the reproduction of fayor- 
ite forms of the vulgar speech. 

24 Cf. Meinhardt, 18, Bruchmann. The vocative, Orphic Hymn 15. 1, is an invo- 
cation, not an oath. 

25 Schol. Arist. Pl. 555, ef. Meinhardt, 17 f. 

26 Not mentioned as an epithet of Zeus in the exhaustive indices of Welcker, 
Prell.-Rob. or Gruppe. 

27 Cf. Welcker, II 183 f.; Prell.-Rob. 151; Gruppe, 1108 n. 3, and passim (ef. 
index). 


38 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


tophanes down;** while Dinarchus, the orator, uses it once alone, 3. 15, 
and with the name of Athena once, 1.36, & déorow’ ’A@nva Kai Zed 
c@rep.2*> In various forms the oath occurs six times in Menander, always 
spoken by men, as it chances. The formula ya rov Aia tov cwrnpa is one 
of the four in the already much-discussed oath of the terror-stricken 
slave Parmenon, 8. 95, where the other deities are Dionysus (cf. p. 30), 
Apollo (cf. p. 19), and Asclepius (cf. p. 22), all of whom may also 
be @eoi cwrnpes, as I have shown. v7 tov Ala tov cwrnpa occurs twice: 
in E. 142 the slave Davus is in trouble because Smicrines’ arbitrament 
has been unfavorable to him;*° in Pk. 336, the reading and the context 
are very uncertain, though probably the speaker is the young man 
Moschion. The simple vocative Zed o@rep occurs twice: in E. 486,*! 
where the officious slave Onesimus trembles for his hide, an interesting 
passage because of the characteristic Greek paronomasia, o@rep and owfe™ 
with which compare the invocation of Artemis Prothyraea in Orphic 
Hymn 2. 14, caf’, dorep edus aiel owrepa tporavrwy; in 536. 7 K. the 
sailors on the sinking ship urge one another in the name of this god to 
lay hold of the cordage. That slaves should swear by Zeus Soter in three 
out of the six instances that we have is an interesting coincidence, inas- 


28 Cf. Meinhardt, 17 ff., esp. 21 f.; Bruchmann. 

29 Kihnlein, 33, 65. Note the oath of the people of Assium (cf. Bruns, Fontes 
iuris Romani antiqui? [1909], 279) duvupev Aia owrnpa kai Geov Kaicapa LeBa- 
orov kal THY TaTpLaY ayvAV wapHevov KTr. (Wenger, 246.) 

30 “celle d’un homme qui voit ses espérances ruinées.’’—Croiset. 

31 Properly a prayer, but included in the discussion because itsffect is much 
like that of an oath. 

32 Hense, BphW. X XIX (1909), 355; ef. supra, p. 18, n. 16, with bibl. Com- 
pare the way in which the characters of Plautus and Terence invoke the deity 
Salus: 


Cist. 644 f. O Salute mea salus salubrior, 
tu nunc, si ego volo seu nolo, sola me ut vivam facis. 

Capt. 529 neque iam Salus servare, si volt, me potest. 
Most. 351 nec Salus nobis saluti iam esse, si cupiat, potest; 
Adelph. 761 f. ipsa si cupiat Salus, 

servare prorsus non potest hance familiam. 
Cist. 742 at vos Salus servassit. 

Capps compares 

Bacch. 880 Ah, Salus 


mea, servavisti me. 
But it is uncertain whether it is an aside addressed to Salus, or, as Ussing 
takes it, a direct address of Chrysalus (ef. Cas. 801. Poen. 366). 


OATHS 39 


much as Zeus Eleutherios and Zeus Soter were sometimes identified. 
In all cases the oath by this god seems to have been a very strong one. 
We must assume, therefore, that the father, in 532. 2 K. worried as to 
how he may best marry off his daughter, swears @ Zed c&rep, in a simi- 
larly earnest mood. 

Zeds pidvos, the god of friendship,* is formally invoked as a witness 
of the truth of the unknown speaker’s words in 54 K.: 


Maprvpouar Tov Piriov, &® Kparwy, Ala. 


This god is frequently invoked, especially in the form xpés didiov by 
the disputants in the Platonic dialogues, usually in an appeal for a fair 
answer to a question. See also, without the name of the god, Pherec. 96 
K. vq rov didvov, where the comic poet asks the favor of his judges; and 
Arist. Ach. 730, vai rov diduov, where the Megarian, who has long de- 
sired a friendly market at Athens, is the speaker. In our passage from 
Menander, 54 K. we know nothing unfortunately of the relation of Crato 
and his friend, so that no conclusions can be drawn as to the exact usage 
of the oath in that passage. The verb papripowa gives the oath a for- 
mal character suitable to a debate or legal argument. Though an oath, 
the idea of testimony is still present.® Such invocation of the gods as 
witnesses to confirm an oath was customary from the earliest times, ef. 
Meo Olle de AG: 


OATHS BY HELIOS. 


E. 308 A. a6’ dy deyn 
Tpocou“odoynow, Tov drauwapreiv unde ev 
mpotépa Neyous’. O. dvbréepevye, vy Tov “Hduov. 


Servus Onesimus is entranced with Habrotonon’s clever scheme. 


S. 108 aTléw oe, vy Tov “HXuov. 


Senex Demeas threatens Parmenon. 


33 Schol. Pl. Eryx 392 a; cf. Meinhardt, 22. 

34 Phot. Suid. s.v. Pidvos (Zevs) quoting this passage and Pherec. 96 K. (v1) rov 
gtiduov, name of the god omitted); schol. Pl. Phaedr. 234; Dio Chrys. Or. 1. 40. 
Cf. Welcker, II 202 f.; Prell.-Rob. 148; Gruppe, passim, esp. 1116 n. 6; Jane Har- 
rison, Prolog. Study Gr. Relig. (1903), 355 ff.; and for uses of the epithet, Bruch- 
mann, Meinhardt 22. 

35 So Schroder (1859), 9, citing many examples of this and similar usage. Cf. 
Sittl. 140-n. 9; Hirzel, 23 n. 1, 25 ff. 


40 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


EK. 406 vn tlov! “HXcov. 
Speaker uncertain. 


Je 1-28 vy tov “Hop. 
Speaker uncertain. 


o2e KK. Ouvumt oor Tov “Hdwov 
7 LNV ATOLOELY GOL Ypagynyv KaKkwoews. 


Matrona threatens to sue Simulus for divorce on grounds of cruelty. 


Kl. 45 ouvow Tov “Hd.ov- 
ei un Pepwv 6 Tais Omidb’ EBAadiCE pou 
Ta Odova Kal Tis HY UTOvVOLa KpaiTadANs, 
2Q! ’ > 0. ~ > 5) os 
€Bowy av evs tapakoXovJay ev ayopa 


Adulescens Phidias to his slave. 


Helios, the sun-god, was held in especial reverence from the earliest 
times as the all-seeing god, the spy of gods and men, before whom no sin 
could be kept secret.?- In Homer,’ on the most solemn occasions both gods 
and men called him to witness their veracity and fidelity. Throughout 
Greek literature and frequently in the inscriptions he is invoked,‘ but it 
would seem rather as a witness than as an avenger of perjury, for he does 


1 Lef. 

Ci. 203. 277,,Od. 11. 109) 12. 323: Hom: He in Cer62- Herodote7. 37; Aesch. 
Ag. 632, Prom. 91, Cho. 985; Soph. O. C. 869, Elec. 825, Trach. 101; Virg. Aen. 4. 607; 
Ovid Met. 4. 172, 227. Cf. Rapp, in Roscher, I 2020; Preller-Robert 433; Hirzel, 
p. 24n. 0, 40 n. 2; Farnell, Cults of the Greek States V (1909), 418. 

$7. 19. 259, 3. 277; H. in Merc. 381; cf. Il. 3. 103 f. 19. 197. See Ziebarth, 7; 
Wilamowitz, ad Eurip. Her. 858; supra p. 23. 

4 Aesch. Ag. 1323, Prom. 91, Cho. 985; Apollon. Arg. 4. 229, 1017; Julianus 
Epist. 38, p. 536.2 Hertl. Cf. Virg. Aen. 4. 607, 12. 176; BCH. VI (1882), 501; Rapp, 
l.c.; Preller-Robert, l.c.; Lasaulx, n. 14. For oaths by Zeus, Gé, and Helios see 
Usener, 18 f; by Gé and Helios, and Zeus and Helios, 7d. 330 f.; ef. also Heliodor. 
231. 10. The oath by Zeus, Demeter, and Helios was peculiar to Athens (Bek- 
ker’s Anecd. Gr. 443. 30, cf. Usener, 19). Men. 609 K. gives a rationalistic, though 
rather inane (Wilamowitz l.c.) explanation of the grounds for sun-worship: 


ov \ BY Coy ~ ~ ~ 
Hye, c€ yap bet mpookuvety tpwrov Jeav, 
du’ dv Oewpetv Extt TOvs GAXous Oeods. 


This has been used as an evidence of materialistism and scepticism by Wendler, 
Mediae ac recentioris comoediae Atticae poetae quid de diis senserint, diss. Gér- 
litz (1870), 45. See also Men. 537 K., for a report of the philosophy of Epichar- 
mus who was said to have regarded the sun as a god. For the sun as the first of 
the gods, cf. Soph. O. T. 660, and a hymn found in Egypt CIG 3883 lL. 


OATHS 4] 


not seem to have been a powerful god, being impotent to punish the 
sacrilegious, cf. Od. 12.374 ff. And yetlike most of the gods by whom men 
swore, Helios could lend them aid in time of trouble and hence some- 
times passed under the epithets owrnp® and édevbepios.° 

The oath v7} (ua) tov “HdXvov seems never to have been a favorite of 
the vulgar speech.’ There is no instance of its use before the middle of 
the fourth century, the first example, perhaps, being vai pa Ala kai 
“AXwov, a formal oath taken during Alexander’s lifetime by the people of 
Lesbos, preserved on an inscription at Eressus, ef. Conze, Reise auf Les- 
bos (1865), t. 12 B. 20. The first examples in the oaths of private life 
seem to be in the Middle Comedy. v7 7rov “HXvov occurs in Alexis 246.1 K., 
Arched. 3. 4 K.; and then in Menander three times: E. 308, 8. 108, and 
EK. 406 (doubtful). To these are to be added the more formal oaths with 
duvuue (ouviw), 328 K., Kl. 45. Meinhardt, 66, 72, in discussing such 
instances of the oath as were then known to him (the ““new’’ Menander 
has more than doubled the number), found himself much perplexed, and 
at last compelled to resort to a rather unsatisfactory makeshift: men 
swore by the sun, he suggests, because it was the first thing that occurred 
to them. But in view of the more formal use of the oath in Homer, in 
tragedy, and in inscriptions, I believe that even in vulgar usage it was not 
chosen at random, but that the choice had at least some foundation in 
the religious beliefs of the people. In most instances, the chief point of 
the invocation lay in the appeal to a god who could witness the truth of 
the speaker’s words. Such is the character of the oath in 328 K., where 
the wife threatens in a most formal manner® to obtain a divorce from her 
husband, and in KI. 45, where Phidias is relating an incident to his slave. 
In 8S. 108, the oath has similar confirmatory power, though indignation is 
the speaker’s dominant mood. To Parmenon’s appeal for mercy Demeas 
only replies by calling the Sun to witness that his purpose has not changed: 
orléw ce, vy Tov “HdXvov. The nature of the oath in E. 308 is not so 
clear. The slave Onesimus is delighted with Habrotonon’s plan whereby 
she hopes to learn if Charisius is the father of Pamphila’s child. tzépevye, 
vy tov “Hoy, he exclaims in approval. Perhaps the emphasis of the 
oath lies in the suggestion that the Sun is the god who will bring the 
mystery to light. Still the use of the oath in this passage seems to me to 


5 Paus. 8. 31. 4; CIG 4699. 25 f.; cf. Orph. H.8.17, Aesch. Suppl. 213, Rapp, l.c. 
6 Paus. 2. 31. 8; cf. Rapp, l.c., Gruppe, 191, n. 9. 

7 Sol is one of the 17 divinities invoked by Chrysalus servus, Pl. Bacch. 895. 

8 Cf. s.v. Athena, n. 13. 


42 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


indicate a weakening of its original force. It may be suggested also that 
Onesimus may be thinking of "Hdwos Lwrnp or *EXevdepios who is to 
get him out of the scrape into which his own zepiepyia has brought him. 
Nothing can be affirmed as to E. 406 and J. I. 23, in the fragmentary con- 
dition of the text. 

It is to be noted that all classes of persons use this oath: matrona, senex, 
vuvenis, and servus. 


OATHS BY HERACLES. 


eat Pen 
mpartets Vrép cavtov; A. Adadpa wev, ‘Hpaxdets, 
ovd’ eyKexetpnk’, GANA TH "Uw deoroTH 
elpnx’ 
Servus Davus tells of the course of his romance. 


E. 315 A. apo trovtou 6’ évdov a’to Bovomar 
AaBovoa KNavoat kal Pidnoa Kal ober 
éhaBev Epwrav tnv €xovoav. O. ‘Hpaxdres. 


Servus Onesimus admires Habrotonon’s cleverness. 


E. 542 TO 0’ apracu’, ‘Hpaxdecs, 
Javyacrov oiov. 


Servus Onesimus mocks at Smicrines (Leeu., Capps).! 


Pk. 162 
M. duodroye wav ce. (exit) A. puxpov y’—‘Hpaxdews. kal viv tpeuwv 
avos elu’. 
Servus Davus congratulates himself on his narrow escape out of a 
dilemma. 


S. 145 ‘“Hpaxdes, Tl ToUTO, mat; 
avvouevos elodedpaunkey elaw TLS YEPwr. 


Coquus is amazed at Demeas’ wild actions. 


S. 190 avr’, ‘HpaxXes, Ti TovTO; mpdcbe THY Bupav 
éoTnke Xpvols nde KAdovc’; ov pev ovv 
ad\An. 
Senex Niceratus is surprised to see Chrysis in such a plight. 


1 Smicrines, Bod., Leo, Wil. followed by Rob., K6r., Sud. 


OATHS 43 


S. 207 “Hpakdeus, 
NALKOV KEKpQ’e. 


Senex Demeas exclaims at the outcry in Niceratus’ house. 
E. 146 @ ‘HpaxXeus, a& rérrov0a. 


Hh. 155 aOLKOU TpayL_aTos, 
@ ‘Hpakdes. ov yeyove devvoTépa Kptots. 


Servus Davus is indignant at Smicrines’ award and Syriscus’ insistent 
demands.’ 


S. 193 X. éxBEBAnxe pe 
6 didos 6 Xpnatos gov’ Ti yap GAN; N. @& ‘Hpakders. 
tis; Anuéas; 
Senex Niceratus is astonished at Demeas’ treatment of Chrysis. 


893 K. GAN’ ‘Hpakdedes® Kal Geol. 
Unknown speaker. 


The oaths by the valiant hero-god, Heracles, have been ably treated 
by previous writers,‘ and I need only summarize briefly their conclusions: 
Though the cult of Heracles is supposed to have had its origin among the 
Dorians, it became established at Athens at a very early time.? Men 
naturally invoked him, the performer of mighty deeds, when they de- 
spaired of being able to save themselves.® As an averter of evil, several 
appropriate epithets were applied to him: amorpémauos,’ adetixaxos,” 


2 Perhaps E. 146 Syriscus has hit Davus with a stick, so that the exclamation 
is one of pain. Cf. Arnim, Z6Gym. LVIII (1907), 1074. 

3 Cf. p. 45. 

4 Stephanus, Thes.; Welcker, II 767 f., 785 f., 791 f.; Kiihnlein, 30, 59 f.; Mein- 
hardt, 38 ff.; Ziebarth, 9, 12; Wilamowitz, Eur. Her. I°, 36f.; Gruppe, 453 f.; Diirr- 
bach, in Daremb.-Sagl. III 111; Capps, ad H. 41. 

5 Schol. Arist. Ran. 501; Hesych. s.v. €k MeXirns maortvyias, s.v. Mndwv ‘Hpa- 
kAns; Pausan. 1.19. 3; Zenob. 5. 22; IG. IL 57. 8 ete. ; ef. E. Curtius, Stadtgesch. 
v. Ath. (1891), 121 f. 

6 Cf, Pindar N. 7. 95; Aristides 5, p. 59 Dind.; Hesych.s.v. “HpaxXay; and Suid. 
s.v. ‘HpakXets. 

7Philostr. Vit. Apol. 4. 10, 8. 7. 9. 

8 Hesych. s.v. €k Medirns waorvyias; Hellanicus fr. 138; Zenob. 5. 22; Aristides 
5, p. 60 Dind.; Clemens Alex. Protr. 2. 23; schol. Arist. Ran. 298; schol. Arist. 
Pax 422; Arist. Nub. 1372 with schol. (cf. Welcker, II 791 n. 159, and Pax 422); 
Lactant. Instit. 5. 3. 14; CIG 5989. For variant forms, ef. CIG 5990; BCH (1882), 
342; BCH (1891), 671; IG. VIT 3416 etc., also, citations in Meinhardt. It chances 


44 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


kadXivixos,? and owrhp.° In this aspect, doubtless, he was invoked 
in formal oaths of early times, but of these we have few examples." 
The great majority of our examples from the time of Aristophanes on 
are of the two types ‘Hpakders and & ‘Hpaxdes.2 These formulae, the an- 
cient commentators™ tell us, are to be carefully distinguished from the 
true vocative form “HpakXes, and are to be understood, not as invocations 
or oaths proper, but as very strong exclamations (ézidfeyua Pavyaoti- 
xov) of wonder, joy, amazement, indignation, or pain. The figure of the 
god has largely vanished. Still, it has left a stronger impress upon 
the oath, than in the case of the other common oaths, e.g., v7 Aia or 
"AroNXov. 

Turning to Menander, we are not surprised to find that the only forms 
of oaths by the son of Alemena are these two exclamatory formulae. 
‘HpaxXers alone occurs seven times: H. 41, E. 315, E. 542, Pk. 162, 8. 
145, 8. 190,S. 207. The longer formula @ ‘Hpaxdes is found three times: 
KE. 146, E. 155, S. 198, as an expression of pain or indignation. Onesimus, 
E. 315, exclaims ‘Hpaxdes in admiration of Habrotonon’s cleverness. E. 
542, and Pk. 162, the tone is still of admiration, but ironical rather than 
sincere. In the three instances in the Samia (145, 190, 207) it is preémi- 
nently an exclamation of surprise, in the first case, at least, intermingled 
with terror. Pk. 162, Davus exclaims under his breath: ‘A close call 
that, by Heracles,’’—terror still fills his being,—“‘I am all dried up with 
fear.’’ The appropriateness of the oath is evident. In H. 41 it seems to 
be no more than an emphatic pa Ata, but there was doubtless surprise 
in Davus’ voice, to think that Getas should have any doubt as to his 


that the epithet is not definitely applied to him in Aristophanes, but Meinhardt 
was plainly wrong in contending that it was not applied to him until the time of 
Lucian, for it is found in Hellanicus I.c., a writer of the fifth century B.C. 

® Diog. L. 6. 50; Aristid. 5, pp. 60, 62, Dind.; Theodoretus Affect. cur. 6, p. 155 
Rader; Clemens Alex. Strom. 7. 4. 843; Dio Cassius, p. 225 Mai; CIL IV 733. 

10 Dio Chrysost. Or. 1. fin.; Aristides 5, p. 62 Dind.; coins of Thasos (Head, 
H. N. 229), and of Thrace (ibid. 243). In Hesiod, Shield of Heracles 29, he is called 
apns adkTnp. 

1 First used by Nestor according to Philostr. Heroic., 303 K.; ef. Meinhardt, 40. 

2 For various forms of the oath in the orators cf. Kiihnlein, |.c., and in the writ- 
ers of dialogue, Meinhardt, l.c. Cf. Ziebarth, 12, for vj tov ‘HpaxXéa on a vase 
in Klein, Die griech. Vasen mit Meistersignatur (1887), 133. 18. 

13 Phot., Suid., Etym. mag. s.v. ‘Hoaxes; schol. Dem. 9. 31; schol. Arist. Pl. 
555; schol. Pl. Rep. 509 c; Herodian vepi yop. X., p. 47. 2; Liban. Epist. 285, p. 127; 
Pl. Euthyd. 303 a, with schol.; Choerobos. 1. 147. For violations of the rules set 
up by these grammarians, cf. Lobeck, Phryn. 640. 


OATHS 45 


course of action! The three instances of the longer formula all seem to 
express indignant surprise. 

Only men swear by Heracles"; in Menander ten instances: servi, six 
times; senes, thrice; coquus, once. 

In 893 K. on the authority of Suidas, Photius, Htym.m. (Miller, p. 151) 
S.v. ‘HpadkXes, we have a most interesting oath. Were we sure of the 
manuscript tradition, a\\’ ‘Hpaxdetdar cai feoi, we might with Welcker 
II 767 f. draw some valuable conclusions as to the place the cult of the 
Heraclidae may have had at Athens, and be able to place this with other 
examples of oaths by heroes and tutelar divinities.!° But suspicion is 
cast on the tradition for several reasons. In the first place, there is no 
other evidence, so far as I am aware,!* of the cult of the Heraclidae at 
Athens. The worship of Heracles was firmly established; but there 
appears to be no trace of the worship of the semi-mythical heroes, his 
reputed descendants, who are said to have taken refuge in Attica on 
more than one occasion. 

The lexicographers who cite the oath are discussing the exclamatory 
form ‘Hpaxdes and distinguishing it from the two vocatives: the poetic 
‘“Hpaxdees and the prosaic “Hpaxdes. Parallels are given and then the 
inept phrase: émixadovvra dé kal ‘HpaxXeldas duolws, with a citation of 
our oath as from Menander. The verse is intended as a further illus- 
tration of vocative forms of the name of Heracles, but it does not illus- 
trate. Meineke, IV, 301 f. inferred from Eustathius 1593. 14, Cramer 
Anecd. Ox. III. 390,'7 that the longer form was occasionally a comic va- 
riant of the shorter. So he restored the line ad\’ ‘Hpakdedes kal Geol. 
This reading illustrates better the point the lexicographers are trying to 


14 Cf. Ziebarth, 12. So also at Rome, ef. Aul. Gell. 11. 6; Macrob. Sat. 1. 12. 28; 
Charisius p. 198 K. Hubrich, De diis Plautinis Terentianisque, diss. Kénigs- 
berg (1883), 125, noted that the mss. of Plautus assign the oath 645 times to men, 
and only six times to women. In the latter passages he rightly assumed the neces- 
sity of emendation or of different assignment of rdles. In these six passages the 
latest editor, Lindsay (1903), follows the mss. only in C7st. 52, and then with hesi- 
tation. Cf. Peter, Roscher, I 2949 f. 

15 Cf. Thuc. 2. 71. 4, 74. 2, 4. 87. 2; Dimarch. 1. 64; Arch. Zeit. XIII (1855), 58; 
Deneken, Roscher, I 2502 f. 

16 Cf. Deneken s.v. Heros, in Roscher, I; Curtius, Stadigeschichte v. Athen. 

17 The argument based on a supposed identification of Heracles and Heraclides 
in Theocr. 17. 26, Meineke has since (ed. Theoer. [1856], ad |.) retracted. Choerob. 
1. 147 cites the form ‘HpaxXecdes (Jacobs ap. Mein. VCCLXXXVIJ), ef. also Phot. 
s.v. ‘Hpakdelénv. 


46 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


make, and does no violence to our knowledge of Attica religion. I am 
convinced that it is the true reading.'® 

Unfortunately we know nothing of the context of the verse. We do 
know, however, that Heracles was a favorite theme for comic jest. Me- 
nander was not averse to making jest at the expense of the greater gods, 
even of Zeus himself; ef. 8. 245 ff. It is not difficult therefore, to assume 
that one of his characters uses this oath, as the commentator says, 
tmavyviov xap. The comic effect is strengthened by the supplementary 
invocation of the gods collectively under the frequent sweeping phrase 
kal Oeoi (cf. p.7f.). It is possible, also, that metrical considerations 
influenced the poet in the choice of the form, since add’ ‘Hpakdes kal et 
could not stand in an iambic trimeter. 


OATHS BY HEPHAESTUS. 


S. 207 €ueé Yap Urovoeiy ToLavTa TOV mLapoY ExpNY, EME; 
vn tov “Hdatorov, dukaiws amofavorm’ av. 
Senex Demeas is humiliated at his unjust suspicion of Moschion and 
Chrysis. 


Aeschylus Hum. 13, calls the Athenians ratées “Hgaio7ov, in allusion 
to their descent from Erichthonius, the fabled son of the fire-god. On 
the question whether Athena was the natural or the foster moth r of 
Erichthonius the mythographers were not in agreement; but that He- 
phaestus and Athena were closely linked together in their protection of 
Athens there was no disagreement. In the cult of the great city of the 
arts these two divine patrons of the arts were held in close union and 
high esteem.! Hephaestus’ place, however, remained a minor one (Rapp, 
Roscher I 2067). He seemed to have little independent power. He was 
over-shadowed by Athena, and though one of ‘“‘the twelve gods,” he 
was one of the least. Perhaps it is for this reason that his name occurs 
so rarely in oaths. The oath wa tov “Hdacoroy occurs in Ameipsias 19 K., 


18 So Blaydes, comparing Arist. Pl. 1 @ Zev kai Oeot. For other parallels cf: 
Meinhardt, 67 f., Pk. 448 &@ In xal @eoi. Kock’s & ‘HpaxXers te kal Qeoi does 
not commend itself: 1. It is certainly not the text which the lexicographers 
had. 2. Parallels are lacking of such a use of the conjunctions in an oath. 

1For the story of the birth of Erichthonius, the relation of Athena and 
Hephaestus, and the worship of the latter god at Athens, see evidence cited by: 
Welcker, I 662, II 689; Rapp in Roscher, I 2069, 2073 f.; Prell.-Rob. 198, and 
n. 2; Schém.-Lip. IT 548 ff. 


OATHS 47 


speaker unknown; apparently the first occurrence of the oath.” The only 
other instance so far as I have been able to find is in Menander, 8. 207, 
under the formula v7 rov “H@aorov, where the aged Demeas repents 
his harsh treatment of Moschion and Chrysis. How is the oath to be 
explained? Meinhardt, 49, thought that in the first passage there might 
be an allusion to cxadAutparecos Which occurs in the context. But it is 
hard to see what especial interest the metal-working god would have in 
the ‘setting of a fine table,” for such, I take it, is the implication of the 
word. Certainly in the Menander passage there is no reason why the 
fire-god, as such, should be invoked. Lacking other evidence, I think 
the oath is to be explained as the invocation of a patron god of Athens. 
Any Athenian might naturally swear by him, but comparatively few 
did so because of his inferior position among the gods. On this ground 
perhaps may be explained the fact that in all Greek literature there ap- 
pear to be only two instances of this oath. If one may judge from these 
two instances, it was an oath favored by men rather than by women. 


OATHS BY POSEIDON. 


5. 148 yn tov Iloceda, watvef’, ws Euol doxet’ 


Coquus astonished at Demeas’ behavior. 


Pk. 268 IIoA. Oewpnoov, Ilaraxe, mpos Bewv’ 
uwaddov pw’ édenoes’ lar. @ Ilécetd[ov.! 
Senex Pataecus expresses, in an aside, his amusement at Polemon’s 
proposal. 


The story of Poseidon’s struggle with Athena for the possession of 
Attica is one of the best known in all Greek mythology.? Perhaps be- 
cause of his reputed defeat in that contest his cult never attained the 
prestige in Athens that might reasonably have been expected in view of 
the maritime prominence of the Athenians, at least in historical times. 
However, Poseidon was one of the especial patrons of the Athenians. 
Hence they invoked him in oaths, in many instances, apparently for no 


2“ Hdacore Eur. Troiad. 343, Cycl. 599, is a direct prayer, not an oath. The oath 
is not found in Latin comedy, but see Pl. Bacch. 255. 

1 Korte. 

2 On Poseidon, his worship at Athens, his contest with Athena, ete., ef. Welcker, 
I 637, II 676, 680 f.; Prell.-Rob. 202 ff., 577f.; Neil ad Arist. Eq. (1901), 551. 


AS STUDIES IN MENANDER 


other reason than that he was their protecting deity.* Pausanias 7. 21 
7 f. tells us that the three chief epithets applied to him were zeAdyuos, 
aopadwos,° and immos.® In the first aspect he was lord of the power and 
the wonders of the sea. In the second aspect, he was worshipped as the 
patron of those that brave the perils of the sea and of the earthquake. 
In the last, he was the patron of all lovers of horses. Hence Menelaus 
swears by him before the horse-race, //. 13. 584, the first recorded oath 
by Poseidon. Arist. Pl. 1050, the young man overwhelmed by the hags 
utters with indignation the oath: @ Hovrorécedov kal Oeot mpecBurixot. 
This passage would seem to indicate that the aged were considered 
Poseidon’s especial wards. The scholiast suggests that this was due to 
Poseidon’s place among the older generation of the gods. In any event, 
the oath by Poseidon was an evident favorite with old men rather than 
with young.’ Young men swore by him only for especial reasons; but 
with old men the oath was almost a common-place. Women never 
swore by Poseidon. 

In Menander there are two’ instances of this oath, all spoken by 
men. In S. 148 the cook as he sees the violence of Demeas’ beha- 
vior, exclaims, v7 rov Ioceda, ‘I believe he’s mad.”’ The appropri- 
ateness of the oath becomes evident when we remember that men of 
violence , for example, Cyclops and the Laestrygonians, were called 
‘““sons of Poseidon,’’ doubtless in view of the violence of the sea.® Ina 
similar mood of excitement the speaker in Pk. 268 exclaims @ Ilécedov. 
Like “Azoddov (cf. p. 18), @ ‘Hpaxdes (cf. p. 44), @ Zed (cf. p. 37). @ 


3 Aesch. 1. 73 (Cf. Kithnlein, 29). Cf. the Heliastic oath as given by Demos. 
24. 151 (cf. s.v. Apollon. 9, with bibl.) ; also many of the oaths cited by Meinhardt, 
23 ff.; Lasaulx, n. 14; also IG.I Suppl. 584 c. According to Neil l.c. the oath by 
Poseidon was a mark of an aristocrat. 

4 Citations of epithets denoting his sea-power in Gruppe, 1144, n. 2. 

5 Arist. Ach. 682 with schol.; schol. Arist. Ach. 510; Aristid. 3 p. 29 Dind.; Ap- 
pian B. Civ. 5. 98, ete. See citations in Gruppe, 1157, nn. 5-8; Wieseler, G6Nachr. 
(1874), 153-160; Prell.-Rob. 582. The epithet owrnp: used e.g. by the Greeks at 
Artemisium, Herod. 7. 192; cf. Gruppe, 1158 n. 4; Welcker, II 675. 

6 K.g., Aesch. Sept. 130; Arist. Eq. 551 f., Nub. 83 f., etc., citations in Gruppe, 
Wee), ro, IE 

7 Cf. Meinhardt, 23 ff.; Ziebarth, 10f. and n. 3. Examples of state oaths in 
Usener, 20 ff. 

8H. 51, Jensen reads avonrov, where Crois. et al. restored Gus vn Tov Holceda. 

9Cornutus 22. Cf. Plaut. Mil. Gl. 15; Lucilius Sat. 1. 1 (ap. Cic. Nat. Deor. 
1. 23); Aul. Gell. 15. 21; Welcker, II 678. 


OATHS 49 


Admatep (ef. p. 27 n. 12), it is an exclamation of wonder and surprise; 
cf. its use in Aristophanes.° 


ELLIPTICAL OATHS 


Pk. 221 ox UyLalvers—ool Ka\w— 
vy! tov eves yap. 
Speaker uncertain: Miles Polemon (Rob.) or Senex Pataecus (Kor. 
et al.)? 


[369 K. ov ma THY 
Speaker, context unknown; interpretation uncertain.*] 


Oaths from which the name of the god is omitted have furnished the 
material for much discussion, ancient and modern.’ The elliptical for- 
mula which occurs in Arist. Ran. 1374, Pl. Gorgias 466 e.,° and several 
times in post-classical writers® is ua tov. vi rov the probable reading, 


10 Hq. 144, Vesp. 148, Pax 564, Av. 294, 1131, 1638, Ran. 491, 664, 1430, Pl. 1050; 
also Pl. Euthyd. 301 e, Antiph. 2. 33 K.; cf. Welcker, l.c. Note the oathof Demea 
senex, Ter. Adelph. 790, ‘‘O caelum, O terra, O maria Neptuni;’’ cf. V. Aen. 12. 
197, ‘“‘terram mare sidera iuro;’’ and Ovid, Trist. 2. 53 “‘ Per mare, per terras, 
per tertia numina iuro.’’ 

1Kor. Sudhaus, RhMus. LXIV (1909), 420, doubts the restoration, asserting 
that if v7 roy actually stands in the papyrus, it should be emended to y77Tov, which 
he thinks is required by the context that follows. However, there is nothing in 
his argument drawn from the exceptional sobriety of Sosias, which is inconsistent 
with the much simpler emendation, xoTvAns for KorvAnp. 

2 Cf. Capps, p. 185 b; also bibl. cited by Rees, Cl. Ph. V (1910), 294 n. 2. 

SiC fespaol- 

4 Among modern commentators see esp.: Lambert Bos, Ellipses Gr. (1700, ed. 
Schaefer 1825), 115; Reiz, De accent. inclin. (1781, ed. Wolf) 14; Lasaulx (1844), 
n. 114, Schréder (1845); Kiihnlein, 1; Meinhardt, 23; Hirzel, 97 n. 0; edd. ad Arist. 
Ran. 1374, esp. Brunck (1783), Spanheim (apud Bekker, 1829), Thiersch (1889), 
Blaydes (1889), Van Leeuwen (1846), Rogers (1902); Kiihner-Gerth IT 2. 559; 
Korte, BSG. LX (1908), 154; Capps. 

5 So best mss. Stob. Floril. 45. 31 cites the oath under the Socratic form (ef. 
schol. Arist. Av. 521; literature cited by Lasaulx, n. 117, Meinhardt, 74 f., Heu- 
mann, 10) wa Tov Kiva. The scholiast ad Arist. Ran. 1374, however, expressly 
names Plato as a user of the elliptical form. 

6 Philod. Epigr. Anth. Pal. 5. 126; Diog. L. 5. 4. 7; Strato Sard. Hpigr. Anth. 
Pal. 12. 201; Agath. Epigr. Anth. Pal. 7.552; cf. Gregor. Cor. De dialectis 65; Philo 1. 
e.; schol. Pl. Gorg. 466 e; schol. Arist. Ran. 1374; Eustath. 1450. 38 ff.; and inter- 
polation in a Paris mss. of Suid. s.v. gaye fav restored by Toup, Hmendationes 
(1799), II 324. 


50 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 221, is a form that does not occur elsewhere in the extant literature. 
It was known, however, to the early scholars: Philo, De special. legg. 2.1. 
4 ed. Cohn: Eildw@acr yap avadbeyEduevor rocovTov pdvoy ““v} rév’’ 4H “pa 
Tov,’ undév tpoorapadaBortes, Eupadoer THS aTOKOTNS Tpavovyv OpKov ov yevo- 
uevov. Eustathius, 1450. 38 ff., esp. ottw dradeper kata AtdAvov Arovicroy, Kal 
TA OPKWUATLKA ELpphuata’ TO pev Yap V7) Tov,’ Kal “Dal wa Tov”? KATWMOTLKE 
dao. Suidas s.v. v7) ryv iepav xepadhv: 76 “vi” KatwporiKdy éore Exippnua, 
rouréott, pel’ Spxov BeBawrikdy’ &aTwEep TO “pa” amTwuoTiKov, pel’ OpKou 
apynrixov. “Ni rév,” xal “val ua tov’? KaTwporiKa Tata. amwporiKa 6€, 
“Ma rov Ai’,” ‘‘od wa rv.” ore éoxarn akvpodroyia 76 Meyev, “Ma ror 
Aia roinoov.”’ Furthermore, vai ua tov, the equivalent in meaning of v7 
7ov, is found in our literature.’ There is no reason therefore, a priori 
or other, to doubt that Menander may have used it. 

Many elliptical oaths* doubtless were due to aposiopesis, the sudden 
suppression of the conclusion of the end of a phrase or sentence. But 
aposiopesis is not the explanation of the omission of the deity’s name 
in our passage, for there is no break in the continuity of thought. The 
ancient commentators® were wont to explain the omission of the god’s 
name in these elliptical oaths as the result of piety or euphemism. In 
that way one might explain the oaths of a pious Socrates or of an Aelian 
of pretended piety.!° But piety was scarcely the reason for the ellipsis, 
Pk. 221. Whoever the speaker, whether the impetuous young soldier 
Polemon, or the goodly friend and mediator Pataecus, he was a man who 
had no hesitance in swearing. Polemon elsewhere swears as follows: 
Pk. 267, 401, wpos Oey; 440, *Amoddov; 255, wa rHv Anunrpa; 417, v7 Tov 
Ata and possibly 569 K., duviw cor rov Aia rov "ONbprov Kal thy ’AOnvav. 
Pataecus swears thus: Pk. 329, pds trav Oewv; 274, wa rov Ata; 313, & 
Zev modvtiunte; 268, @ Hocedov. The failure to complete an oath might 
on occasion be the result of rhetorical artifice, the striving after unusual 
effects; but the speaker in Pk. 221 is in no facetious mood. 

This passage should be treated, I believe, as an example of the Athe- 
nian vernacular. It proves, what perhaps should never have been doubted, 
viz., that these elliptical formulae were in rather common use. They 


7 Aelian Histor. anim. 3. 19, 4. 29; Theophylactus Simocatta Histor. 2. 9. 8; 
Anon. in Suid. s.v. vai wa Tov. 

8 Strato Sard. l.c., Agathias l.c., Meleager Epigr. Anth. Pal. 5. 179; cf. 
Schroder, 6. 

®Schol. Arist. Ran. 1374; schol. Pl. Gorg. 466 e. 


10 “‘Scilicet redundat liber Aeliani etiam alibi ementitae pietatis simulatione, velut IX 33, XIV 13 
and 28; XV 11, cett.’’—Schréder 6f. 


OATHS 51 


resulted from the ellipsis of the superfluous final word of the common- 
place phrases, wa (v7) tov Aia, the oaths which were used most frequently 
and were therefore the weakest. A parallel for such omission was fur- 
nished by the ellipsis of the verb in the familiar curse, és xépaxas. The 
article seems always to have been in the masculine singular. We hear 
of other genders and numbers only in the rather dubious texts of the 
lexicographers,'! and even they fail to cite any sure examples from an- 
cient writers. The only possible instance is the much discussed” frag- 
ment of the Orge of Menander (869 K.) cited by Hesychius: od parny 
(ua rHv?): ovk AdnO@s. Mévavdpos év ’Opyn. Bentley seems to have been 
the first to suggest that this was an elliptical oath. There are, in my 
opinion, certain serious objections to such an interpretation of the pas- 
sage. (a) There are no parallels. (b) The origin of the form is obscure. 
No oath by a goddess is used so constantly as the common oaths by 
Zeus. Hence the name of the goddess by whom one swore would not be 
readily suggested to the hearer by the mere form of the article. (It is 
possible, of course, that had we the context we would see herein an in- 
stance of aposiopesis). (¢) odx adnOas, the gloss, hardly seems the equiv- 
alent of ov wa thy, the assumed lemma. If this were an example of an 
oath by a goddess, would there not have been, as Schroder has suggested, 
a more careful explanation by the lexicographer? Perhaps an explana- 
tion was given, which has been lost in transmission. In any event it 
is strange that there is no mention of this passage in the numerous other 
glosses in Hesychius on the same general theme. The evidence, in my 
opinion, is against this being an oath, unless through aposiopesis, and 
of that we could judge only with the entire passage before us. 

Rejecting this as an oath, one is involved in further difficulties in 
attempting to explain Hesychius’ note: ot parny = odk adnOas! In 
the belief that there is corruption in the text, various attempts at emen- 
dation have been made. Bos suggested otk &\d\ws, and Passow adnfas, 
for the manuscript otx dd7nOas. It is possible that one of these is the 
proper correction. Neither recommends itself to me. Both are too 
obvious and fail to explain the present form of the text. 


11 Phot. Suid. s.v. v7? tnv; Phot. Hesych. s.v. val trav; Eustath. l.c.; Gloss in 
Suid. s.v. val wa 70. 

12 Lambert Bos, Animad. (1715), III 14; Schneider, Periculwm criticum in Antho- 
logicum C. Cephalae (1772), 36; Toup, Emendatt. (1799), II 324; Hemsterhuys 
(1811), ad Arist. Pl. 120; Bentley; Huschke, Anal. crit. (1800), 39; Abresch, Dilu- 
cidd. auctor. 390; Mein.; Dobree; Kock; Blaydes; Schroder, 8 f.; Passow, Acta 
Soc. Philol. Lips. (1811), T. I. p. 10f. ‘ 


STUDIES IN MENANDER 


or 
bo 


In reading Bos’ note in which he hazards the interpretation of ovx 
anes as a question, another possible explanation occurred to me. Bos 
refers to Hesychius s.v. ov« éros and schol. ad Arist. Plut. 404. To these 
he might have added schol. Arist. Pl. 1166; schol. Pl. Rep. 568 a; Suid., 
Etym. M. s.v. é76s; and Tzetes, Cramer Anecd. 1V 77.10. In all these 
comments it is apparent that the scholiasts confounded éros (waraiws, 
“vainly’”’; cognate, Homeric ézwo.os) with éreds (adnOns, “real,” 
‘“true.”’)!8 It aided in this confusion that the few sentences“ in which 
the phrase ovx é7os occurred might be interpreted in two ways. Tak- 
ing ox érés as equivalent of ob warny, ob waraiws ‘not in vain,” the sen- 
tence might be considered a simple declarative. Or confounding ovk é7és 
with otk éreov the sentence might be taken as a question: “Really, 
didn’t he so and so?”’ The result is that the lexicographers gave two 
utterly incompatible explanations of the word, for example, Hesychius: 
ovk éTds* ov patalws, ovk adnO@s or the schol. Arist. Pl. 404 on the same 
phrase ovk adoyws, GANG dixalws, 7} avTl Tov ov’K adnOas. Bos after quo- 
ting these passages adds the comment: “‘quod postremum etiam inter- 
rogative scribendum. Jam éros et parny idem significant.” The logical 
fallacy which Bos has committed is clear enough: that of the undis- 
tributed middle. He has equated alternative but unequal explanations. 
Without assuming a deliberate fallacy on the part of the scholiast, I 
suspect that some such process lay back of the gloss in Hesychius. Per- 
haps there was a conscious collating of two or three different glosses on 
érés. But more probably the original reading was ov parny’ obk ér6s; 
then somebody, reading the glosses on ovx é7os, wrote in the margin 
ovk d&AnOas; and then this latter explanation, as the simpler, crowded 
out the original reading. Such, at least, is the hypothesis that has 
occurred to me. But in the words of Schréder ‘‘videlicet haec res ex 
iis est, quae certo sciri nequeant.”’ A scholar of the future may have 
similar difficulty in determining the exact coloring of some of our collo- 
quialisms such as ‘‘Oh my,” “Go to,” and “Glory be.” Are they 
facetious or euphemistic! 


13 In the perplexed question of these etymologies (cf. Ebel, ZvSpr. V_ [1856], 
69 f.; Fay, Cl. Qu. III [1909], 273), these general relationships are undoubted. 

M4 Arist. Ach. 411, 413, Av. 915, Thes. 921, Eccl. 245, Pl. 404, 1166, fr. 10 K.; Pl. 
Rep. 3. 414 e, 8. 568 a; Philet. 5 K. 8; Oppian Cyneg. 1. 53. 


OATHS ao 
UNCERTAIN OATHS. 


P95 duvia v7 | 
Speaker probably servuws Davus (Kor., Sud.). The restorations sug- 
geste are v7 rnv ’AOnvav (or rov Iocede®) Kor., v) tov Av’ Sud. 


Pk. 99 ds LOA Lett YOU 


nofas, adda TUpoTH et 


Tuvenis Moschion chides his servant Davus. The three possibilities 
metrically are wa Ai(a), ua rov ’Aro\Aw, OF a Tov + vowel (i.e., ellip- 
tical oath). 


Other passages where oaths have been restored are too uncertain for 
_ consideration. 


OTHER OATHS. 


5. 110 a modoua Kexporias xOovos, 


sf A ’ U “oe 
@ Tavaos aifnp, o— 


Senex Demeas in great agitation. 


This is an oath or invocation in true tragic style. Cf. Capps: 

‘“‘a hodge-podge of Euripidean phrases that recall those in Aristophanes; cf. Med. 
771 and I. T. 1014 rrodcoua HadXaoos, Hipp. 34 and Ion 1571 Kexporiav x6ova, 
Orest. 322 tov ravaov aifépa. The aether is apostrophized in Soph. O. C. 1471, 
w@ weyas al€yp, ® Zev, and Aesch. Prom. 1092 © ravtwyr alfjp Kowvov daos eiNicowr. 
Aristophanes uses 70\ccua for grandiose effect in Av. 553, 1565, and aiénp often 
as a favorite word of Euripides, e.g., Ran. 892 aifnp, Eudv Booknua.”’ 

Cf. also & rods “Apyous Arist. Hg. 813, Pl. 601 = Eur. Telephus, 713 N. 
Cf. also Lef. p. 208; Wilamowitz, NJkIA. X XI (1908), 59 n. 1; Van Leeu- 
wen’; Korte, Arch. Pap. IV (1908), 519; Bodin-Mazon, Fztraits, ad 1. 


SUMMARY. 


Not excluding duplicates, there are one hundred and twenty-nine oaths 
in Menander of which the character is fairly certain: ninety-eight spoken 
by men, thirteen spoken by women, and eighteen where the sex of the 
speaker is uncertain, though he is probably in most cases a man. It 
will be noted that the great majority of the oaths are by men; that of 
those by men, nearly two-thirds are by senes or servi; and that of those 
by women, over half are by meretrices. This is what one might expect 
considering the proportion of the number of lines which the different 


54 STUDIES IN MENANDER 




















MEN | WOMEN Be see 
3| | Pee) 
S| | lslslel_lalolsisrsigi lol 
n\O|—|S|a/SiSislei2io/4)/ sisal ol! 2} 
A) <4) /S AA lO 1S Ea << es = 
All the gods............... | 4 a3 2a) | |ajaeel fala | ja} 605} 86 
The twelve gods.:.........| 1| | he a Ne a | | | wae 
Arnone sc. ¢ct lech eeeeme 12h Deeteeve II (2) 71) | i ts amet 
olla lect. eur ames Aveeno tated | Wher Ol alelan 4 16 
ANS clepius aeecuads ee eae a me ale | oat eal 1 a 
Aphrodite: 25. .2ce ac @ a ete ei 1) ttle 2 
(CLR aR ean Ie oe Ue 1} | | 1) 21 a ee 1 2 
Demetenves meeticet ee eee | | 4 | 1} | 1 1 2 
The Two Goddesses........ hole hel eee Pale 2 
DionySuseeos eee eee Le eal at | 2 | cial 2 
Deen vies. 4 2 | SCO AN glen ADS OL i ila 2 3 33 
ich ose eect eee | 1} 1} 4} | 3] 1} | | 1 2 6 
Hieracles st. 62.2 eee SING i} fol | | | | 4 ll 
Hephaestus. ..5...2..2.0.2.| 1) | | 1} | He | 1 
Boseidonien. oon ae | 1} | ete | 2a Abe a) | 2 
Hilipticaly saec ee G Een alee AP Ue P| | 1 
Grand Totals 251038 911 1 31098 3.17 1 113 18. eg 
| | | | | | | 























classes of persons speak. One might think that oaths by cwvenes 
might be more frequent, but the rather small number is in part 
due to the fact that probably many of those which I have classed under 
incerti are really spoken by iwvenes, for example, oaths in the mouths of 
lovers. Furthermore, milites form really a mere subdivision of the larger 
class of iwvenes, for example, Polemon in the Periceiromene. The evi- 
dence seems to show no especial propensity for profanity on the part of 
any especial class of persons. 

Menander confirms the conclusion which has already been drawn 
from the usage of other writers, that women never swear by Athena, 
Apollo, Dionysus, Heracles, or Poseidon; that men never swear by the 
Two Goddesses; and that all classes of persons indiscriminately, so 
far as we can judge, used the oath by all the gods and that by Zeus. 
Menander furnishes a slight amount of evidence on other forms of oaths, 
but no conclusions can be drawn from this evidence until additional 
material is available. It is unfortunate that there are nomore oaths by 
young men or by women, that we might be able to tell whether any dis- 


OATHS ror9) 


tinction is to be drawn between the oaths which young men and old men 
used, or those which matrons and slave womenor women of loose repu- 
tation used. Personally I do not believe that there was any such dis- 
tinction, unless perhaps in the case of the oath by Poseidon; but this 
is an opinion based rather on theory than on evidence. 

A comparison of the types of oaths used in Menander with the usage 
of Aristophanes, of other writers of Greek comedy, and of the writers of 
Latin comedy may be of interest. Of the sixteen leading forms, all save 
the oaths by Asclepius, Helios, and Hephaestus occur in Aristophanes; 
all save that by the Twelve Gods and the elliptical oath occur elsewhere 
in Greek comedy. The oaths by the Twelve Gods, by Asclepius, by the 
Two Goddesses, by Dionysus, by Hephaestus, and the elliptical oath do 
not occur in Latin comedy. 

There are certain notable omissions in the list of gods by whom the 
characters in Menander swore. The oaths by Hermes, Hecate, and 
Hestia occur in Aristophanes and other comic poets, but not in Menan- 
der. Those by Hecate and Hestia are not found in Latin comedy. It 
is possible that the oath by Artemis (= Juno Lucina), occurring in 
Aristophanes and elsewhere, may have been used by the women of Me- 
nander, cf. Men. 40 K. Most of the oaths that occur in Aristophanes, 
not found in Menander, are oaths by local deities used by their especial 
worshippers, e.g., Ach. 776, a Megarian swears by Diocles, and Ach. 867, 
a Boeotian by Iolaus. The oaths by the ‘“‘dog”’ and by Hera were Socratic 
favorites and are found only in the writers of the Socratic school, i.e., 
Xenophon and Plato. There are no oaths in Menander to parallel the 
Aristophanic oaths by “Respiration,” ’Avamvon, or ‘Holy Mist,” 
’Ouixdn, which are used in the Clouds solely for comic effect. Menander 
has occasion to introduce such extravagant oaths only in such a para- 
tragedic passage as Demeas’ soliloquy in the Sama (ef. p. 53). 

In general, the characters in Menander used the oaths generally used 
in other Greek comedies, and presumably by the mass of the people. 
The oaths in Menander, therefore, furnish additional reason for believ- 
ing that his language was closely imitative of the language of the com- 
mon people. 


CHAPTER II. 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS. 


The fact is well known! that in the iambic trimeter and trochaic tetra- 
meter of the Attic drama the combination of mute and liquid within a 
single word differed from other combinations of two consonants in its 
effect upon a preceding syllable short by nature. The consonants 
YH, vv, du, 6v always make position; BA, yA regularly do, in Aristophanes 
always. On the other hand, the remaining combinations, viz. Bp, yp, 
dp, OA, Ou, Ov, Op, KA, KM, KY, KP, WA, TY, TWP, TA, TM, TY, TP, PA, HY, Hp, XA, 
XH, xv, xp, usully have no effect upon the quantity of a preceding short 
syllable. In tragedy these rules are occasionally violated in certain words 
of lyric and epic association, and in a few instances through conscious 
poetic freedom. In Aristophanes all exceptions, apart from the word 
dpaxun (which I shall have occasion to discuss later), appear to be due 
to quotation, parody, or reminiscence of other poets. 


*An exhaustive bibliography of the discussions of the metrical value of mutes 
and liquids in the Attic drama would be very extensive. I have consulted the 
following scholars; the list includes, I trust, all the more important discussions 
and statements of the principles involved: 

Dawes, Misc. Crit. (1745), Sec. V. ad Arist. Pl. 166; Hermann, Elem. metr. (ed. 
1817), p. 28 f., ad Soph. Antig. 296, ad Eur. Bacch. 1301, ad Aesch. Agam. 400; Por- 
son, ad Eur. Hec. 298, praef. ad Hec. LIX, Mus. Crit. III (1814), 334; Monk, ad 
Eur. Alc. 408; Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 288, ad Eur. Bacch. 1307; Schafer, ad Eur. 
Orest. 64; Seidler, ad Eur. El. 1009, 1053; Bothe, Soph. fr. 1, p. 107; Lobeck, ad 
Soph. Aj. 1109; Matthiai, Gramm. ed. 1837 (English trans.), §§24, 25; Cobet Mn. 
IV (1855), 124f. = N. L. 28 f.; Rumpel, Quaestiones metricae, progr. Insterburg, 
(1865-6) ; Schmidt, Gr. Metrik 66 (trans. White 8); Maguire, The Prosody of BX and 
yX in Old Comedy and Tragedy, Hermath. II (1876), 331-354; Gobel, De correptione 
Attica, diss. Bonn (1876); Christ, Metrik der Gr. u. R. (1879), 12 f.; Kopp, Positio 
debilis und correptio Attica, RhMus. XLI (1886), 247 ff., 376 ff.; F. Perschinka, 
De mediae et novae quae vocatur comoediae Atticae trimetro iambico, diss. (1891), 
367 f. (reprint, Dissertationes philologae Vindobonensis III [1887], 321-373); Ross- 
bach-Westphal, Gr. Metrik, III? (1887), 1. 105 f.; Kihner-Blass, Gramm. I 1. 303- 
307; Kock, ad Arist. Nwb. 320; Tucker, On a Point of Meter in Greek Tragedy, CIR 
XI (1897), 341 ff.; von Mess, zur Positionsdehnung vor Muta cum Liquida bei den 


56 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS rif 


As for the comedy of the Middle and New periods, it has been as- 
sumed by many scholars? that it was more closely related to tragedy in 
matters of prosody, than to the Old Comedy. The discovery of consid- 
erable fragments of the plays of Menander may enable us in some meas- 
ure to test this assumption. 

I desire therefore to cite the passages in his fragments in which there 
are real or apparent exceptions to the foregoing rules; to determine, if 
possible, the justification for each genuine exception. The solution of 
this problem may give some clue concerning the relation of Menander’s 
language, on the one hand, to that of tragedy, and, on the other hand, to 
that of the common people. 


SYLLABLES IN THE STRONG POSITION REMAIN SHORT. 


Before BX the syllable appears to remain short in 
638. 1 K., un TouTo BAepns ei vewrepos Eeyw.* 


Cobet, with whom Kock and Blaydes later agreed, doubted this 
reading. But Meineke stoutly defended it and noted parallels for such 
shortening in Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus, in Sopater, the writer of 
tragic farces, as well as in late Greek writers. But these authors are 
poor criteria for the prosody of the comic trimeter. We must consider, 
however, the three passages which Meineke quoted from comedy, in 
poets other than Aristophanes and Menander. 


attischen Dichtern, RhMus. LVIII (1903), 270 ff.; A. Korte, RhMus. LX (1905), 
411 f.; Naylor, Doubtful Syllables in Iambic Senarii, ClQu. I (1907), 4 ff.; Wila- 
mowitz-Mdllendorf, Berlin klassikertexte, V. (1907), 2. 74, ad v. 7; id., NJrklA. 
XXI (1908), 58 n.; Sachtschal, De comicorum Graecorum sermone metro accom- 
modato, diss. Breslau (1908), 12 f.; Schade, De correptione Attica, diss. Gryps- 
walde (1908); Selvers, De mediae comoediae sermone, diss. Westphalia (1909), 
15 f; Capps, ad Pk. 156 (86 Kor.). 

2 Cf. e.g. Mein. on the prosody of BA, yA, 1295 (ef. Perschinka; Schade, 41; Sel- 
vers), Kock, ad Antiph. 175. 2, and Kithner-Blass, I 1. 307. Mein. seems to have 
recognized that the later comic poets did not differ from the old in their treatment 
of the weak position, cf. nn. 17, 22, 28, 37. So also Wilamowitz. Korte, Sacht- 
schal, take the opposite view. 

3 Cf. Elmsley, Edin. Rev. XIX (1811), 90 n.; Mein. Men. fab. inc. XCI, Com. Gr. 
I 295, ed. Theocr. p. 331, Commentatio de Scymno, p. 8, ed. Stob. IV p. LXXI; 
Cobet, Mn. IV (1855), 241 (= N. L. 57 f.); Jacobs, ap. Mein. V p. CCLXXV; Kock; 
Perschinka; Blaydes, Advers. I 156, II 228, ad Arist. Vesp. 570; Herwerden, Col- 
lectanea critica, epicritica, exegetica (1903), 172 f.; Selvers. 


58 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Autoer.’ 3 K. auvol 6€ BAnxafovow: 


Kock’s emendation, unxafovow, is easy and removes the metrical diffi- 
culty... In 


Machon, ap. Athen. 18.581 b.8 kai 7a dopar’ aroBd\ehaca 


the syllable before Bd is to be considered long or short, according as 
one does or does not acknowledge the admission into the iambic trim- 
eter of an anapest after a dactyl.6 Apart from the fact that this com- 
bination seems to occur in a number of passages scattered through Greek 
comedy,’ it should not surprise us in Machon, whose verse was irregular. 
Indeed this very combination occurs in vy. 10, 27 of this same pas- 
sage. I do not doubt therefore that the vowel before BA might have 
been treated as long. Those who refuse to believe that Machon ever 
used the combination of dactyl and anapest, must assume corruption 
both in our line and in vv. 10, 27,—an assumption by no means im- 
possible. But, in any case, Meineke has found in the line a very poor 
witness. In the remaining parallel cited by Meineke, 


Antiph. 175. 2 K., doivxas, év ’A@nvars 6€ yAavcas. 1% Kizpos, 


the syllable before yA appears to be short. Corruption was suspected 
by Herwerden, Mn. IV (1876), 322,8 but he was unable to suggest any 
remedy. However, the failure to find the remedy for a doubtful line does 
not necessarily prove that the line is not corrupt; and any passage must 
be held in suspicion which involves prosody scarcely paralleled else- 
where. It is surely remarkable if true that this should be the only 
instance in comedy where a syllable remains short before yA. But to 
return to Men. 638. 1 K., it is to be noted as further argument against 
the soundness of the received text, that before BX\érw, the syllable pre- 
ceding is always lengthened or common both in tragedy® and elsewhere 


4Maguire, 340, thinks to solve the difficulty by discrediting the early date 
assigned to Autocrates on the authority of Suidas (Mein. I 270). 

5 “nihil opus.’’—Blaydes. Herwerden suggests that the failure to make position 
may be due to paratragedy, but in the three tragedians with the single exception of 
BbBXov Aesch. Suppl. 761, the only word in iambics and trochees which allows a 
vowel before BA to remain short is BAacravw with cognates, cf. Maguire, 335; 
Rossbach-Westphal, 1.c. 

6 Tolit. cited by White, ClPh. IV (1909), 159f., add Rumpel, Phil. XXVIII (1869), 
626; Perschinka, 363 f.; Mein. ITV 498; Kock, RhMus. XLVIII (1893), 213. 

7 Cf. the list in Rossbach-Westphal, III? 2. 229 f., and Christ, 329. 

8 But see Kock and Selvers. 

9 Hence our fragment is not tragic, as Elmsley assumed. 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS 59 


in Menander: Long: 8. 62 amoBdelw, 325. 4 K. obxére BXErets, 541. 3 7d 
Brérev, 586. 2 avTiBderevv; Common: 402. 5 aroBdérwou.'? To be sure, 
no satisfactory emendation for the line has been suggested: Cobet’s uA 
rovro uéeuyynod’ involves changes also in the line that follows; Blaydes’ 
un ToT’ aOpnons OF mi ToOUTO yivwor’, hardly gives the sense; Meineke’s 
own suggestion, «) Tour’ édeyéns is perhaps the easiest. But to repeat, 
the failure to find a satisfactory emendation does not prove the sound- 
ness of the suspected text. All the evidence, the lack of satisfactory 
parallels, and the all but complete variance with tragic and comic 
usage, brings the manuscript reading under suspicion. 
Similar conclusions are to be drawn concerning 


683. 2 K., } TodAa havrdAws TwepiBeBrAnobar rpaypara."! 


As in the other instances Meineke defended the reading, while Kock and 
Blaydes suspected corruption. Once again the usage of tragedy and 
of Menander is against the manuscript tradition: In $. 192, we find 
&GBEBAnxe With antepenult of common quantity, but there is no example 
of a short syllable in such a place. Kock’s repipeBiobar ypaupata was 
rightly rejected by Blaydes and Herwerden. The true reading is still 
to be found. Apart from these two passages, which from general con- 
siderations of tragic and comic prosody may be suspected, Menander 
always lengthened a syllable before a medial with \, yu, v.” 


SYLLABLES IN THE WEAK POSITION ARE LENGTHENED. 


Ott We vov TiO, vv apbvBpioov, Hv advGprKa. 


One cannot treat as short the syllable in question both times it occurs 
in this verse without introducing an overlapping tribrach (v vy vy +) in 
the fifth foot, of which phenomenon there are only two examples else- 


10 In Pk. 86, a trochaic passage, the quantity of the syllable before BX in EwiBred 
is uncertain because of a lacuna preceding and following; but every acceptable 
restoration that has been proposed makes the vowel long before BA; ef. Capps 


and Jensen. 
11 Cf. Mein. ad. 1., Theocritus, p. 331; Kock, and RhMus. XLVIII (1893), 212; 


Blaydes; Herwerden; Selvers. 
12 In certain fragments, the lines are so defective that meter, and hence quan- 
tity, are in doubt: e.g., 
27 K. auprBrAnoTpw TepiBadrA€Erar 
714K. bray yepwv yepovTe yvwpny didot 


There are no examples of du, dv. 


60 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


where in Menander: 123. 2 K., 325. 15, and but five in Aristophanes 
(White, 144). To treat it as long both times, is to introduce into the 
fourth foot the equally objectionable anapest beginning with the last two 
syllables of an unelided word (+ ~ »,—) a phenomenon which occurs in 
the fourth place in 462. 3 K., and in the second place, 348. 8, in a com- 
bination of proper names (White, 153). Therefore it seems preferable 
to sean the disputed syllable, first as short, and then as long. For this 
divergent treatment of the same syllable in one and the same line, trag- 
edy furnishes numerous parallels: e.g., Soph. O. C. 883, Eur. J. A. 961 
vBps (short), UBpic’ (long); Eur. Cycl. 673 ruddot (long), tuddds (short) ; 
Ores. 794, oxvnoes (long), éxvos (short); 517 N. aypeves (long), aypayv 
(short); Phoen. 881 vexpoi (long), vexpots (short); 7. T. 3 ’Arpeis (short), 
"Atpews (long); Soph. O. C. 442, awarpos (short), rarpi (long); Phil. 296 
métpocow (short), rérpov (long); Antig. 1240 vexpos (long), vexpw (short). 

Elsewhere in Menander, this syllable is short, t@pe 728 K., or com- 
mon, vGprcerw Pk. 316. agvBpicar occurs in Alexis 45. 4 K. with short 
antepenult. It does not occur in tragedy. However, the kindred word, 
UBpis, with many of its other compounds is frequent enough and with 
long quantity is found twenty times in Sophocles and Euripides. The 
tragic associations of the root word are very clear therefore. Though 
the tragic influence is not otherwise apparent in our verse, nor even in 
this particular word a@vSpixa, it was doubtless responsible for this 
lengthening before 8p." 


1108 K. ynpas Ne€ovTos KpEetocov akualwy veBpwv 


Though axun is found in Aristophanes and rapaxuaon Men. 573. 2 K., 
(both short), axuaiwy is elsewhere unknown to comedy. As Kock ob- 
served it is distinctly a tragic word, especially with this quantity, e.g., 
Aesch. Pers. 441, Eur. Alc. 316, Hel. 897. Furthermore, the fragment 
was assigned to Menander by Dibner, merely because it follows 738 K.., 
which is definitely ascribed to him in the manuscript.!® Whether from 


183 Cf. Matthia, Gramm. 101, ad Eur. Hec. 673; Kiihner-Blass, I 1. 307 n.; Sacht- 
schal, 13. 

4 Tucker’s totals, which I follow throughout, are somewhat smaller than those 
of Rumpel or Gébel, partly because he leaves out of consideration Eur. Rhes., 
Il, Alon (Cal: 

J formerly thought to find an example of lengthening before dp in a word 
of tragic association in épedpevery (Capps) or épedpov (Sudhaus), Pk. 134; but 
Sudhaus now restores according to Jensen’s reading: 

ov opjodp’ [jxlovcev rapovta ao’ Hews] M. waorvyia. 
16 Cf. Kock; Cramer, Anec. Ox. IV 254. 21. 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS 61 


Menander or not, it is preéminently a tragic line,!” and the prosody of 
axpaiwy is to be treated accordingly. 


1085 K. avev 6€ TaTpds TEKVOY OLK Eln ToT’ ay, 
avev O€ unTtpos ode cvANAB TEKVOU, 
TaTépa O€ Tove TEKVA, UNTEP ws aYNp. 


réxvov With long penult occurs thirty-one times in Sophocles and 
seventy-seven times in Euripides. For variant treatment in adjacent 
lines, ef. Kur. Alc. 377, 379; Herc. f. 45, 47; 454, 456; 1420, 1422: Phoen. 
18, 19; 1263, 1264. The syllable is long in Antiph. 163. 6 K.!5, Eupolis 
103. 2 K., * Arist. 585. 1 K.2° In Menander it is elsewhere short :G.25, 
63, 84, S. 27, 598. 2 K., ef. @uddrexvos 657 K. 

There is no certainty whatever that the passage before us was written 
by Menander. The ascription is due entirely to the surmise of Hem- 
sterhuys in a note on Clemens Alex. Strom. 2. 23. 142, and was approved 
by Dindorf.?!_ But the chances are against it, since v. 1 = Eur. Orest. 
554, where the scholiast quotes dvev 6€ wnrpos v. 2. (Adesp. 16 K). If 
Menander or any comic poet used these verses as they stand, he must 
have been consciously imitating Euripides. 


lee ene: emav €x meTraBodns emt KpEtTTEv EVN. 


The dactyl in the second place shows the corruption of the line, which 
is therefore to be neglected as evidence on matters of prosody and meter.” 


Pk. 229 deov AaBEetv KaTa KpaTos. ovTOTL ME Yap 


This adverbial phrase occurs only twice again in comedy, Pk. 407, 


198,°3 but with this metrical phrasing | —xara|xparos| ERS SA) 


17“neque Menandri neque alius poetae comici fragmentum esse, vel productio 
primae syllabae im a@xyaiwy docket.’’—Mein. IV 711. 

18Cf. Mein.; Kock; Perschinka, 368; Korte, RhMus. LX (1905), 412 criticised 
by Wilamowitz, 59, for réxvoy ‘‘ist immer Lehnwort des hohen Stiles 
da es nicht mehr in Leben gebriiuchlich ist .”’ 

1Parody of some tragic poet (Hermann, Opusc. V 290, cf. Mein.), Euripides 
(Mein.), ef. Kock. 

20Tragic imitation, ef. Mein, V 70, Kock. 

214d Clem. Alex. |. c.; ef. Kock. 

2ék peraBodns éray emi TO Kpettrov yevn Mein.; &k meraBodns Erav Ta o 
émi Kpetrtov wean (perm), Blaydes, cf. Mein. Men. et Phil. Rel. 248, 576; Her- 
werden. 

23 Since the lacuna in the second foot can searcely be supplied save by two shorts, 
the seansion of the remainder of the line is certain. 


62 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


At first sight it would appear that in our passage the syllable before xp 
must be long to avoid the tribrach (Uv ,v) beginning with a dissyllabic 
word, which form of tribrach is not found elsewhere in the third foot of 
any verse of Menander and only twice in Aristophanes, Av. 1588, Ach. 
71.4 It does occur, however, in the parallel phrase, xara rpéd|rov Apol- 
lod. 17. 2 K., the first foot of which Perschinka, 340, scans as a tribrach 
(Uv,~v) excusing, as one might here, the metrical peculiarity on the 
ground of the close connection between the two words. Of the two 
metrical peculiarities the tribrach is less violent than the lengthening of 
the syllable which must therefore be scanned as short. 


EK. 107 Onpav éovtas, OTAa BacTacey, TPEXELY 

Though 67dfe with common quantity of the antepenult is found in 
Pk. 200, 67a does not occur elsewhere in Menander. But with long 
penult it occurs twenty-two times in tragedy. This passage of the Hpi- 
trepontes is decidedly tragic, and the lengthening is to be ascribed to 
tragic influence as Naber, Mn. VIII (1880), 425; Wilamowitz, 59; Leeu.; 
Hense, BpbhW. X XIX (1909), 1502; and Capps have remarked.” 


Pk. 393 Xpvon Te wlTpa 

bitpa is elsewhere unknown to comedy. The penult is short in its 
two occurrences in tragedy, Eur. Hec. 924 (lyric), Bacch. 833. In Ho- 
mer, on the contrary, it is always long, Jl. 4. 137, 187, 216; 5. 857. 
This passage in the Leipzig fragment, though much broken, is distinctly 
tragic.° If the text be right,?’ the usage of epic poetry is here to be 
recognized. 


557.4 K. Ta 6 tora mpoatiHeace Tots aNNOTpLOLS 


There is no parallel in comedy or tragedy for the lengthening of the 
antepenult of adXorpios. In Menander elsewhere, E. 96,8. 130, 68. 2 K., 
602. 2, 742, the syllable is short. There seems to be no justification for 
this lengthening. Inasmuch as the sense is obscure, the passage is prob- 
ably corrupt.?’ 


24 White, 145; Rumpel, Phil. XXVIII (1869), 607. 

25 Cf. Leo, GONachr. (1907), 327. 

26 Cf. Korte, BSG. LX (1908), 169 f.; Schmidt, WkIPh. XX VI (1909), 1053, Herm. 
XLIV (1909), 440; Capps, ad 1. 

27 Korte l.c. queried the reading because of the unusual lengthening, and in the 
Teubner ed. (1910) accepted Herwerden’s emendation by transposition, witpa 
TE xXpvon wavTa. Cf. Capps. 

28 So Mein.; Kock; Naber, Mn. VIII (1880), 422; Blaydes; Wilamowitz. Her- 
werden’s defense of the passage, Obs. Crit. 94, with the difficult translation, ‘“‘ita- 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS 63 


1085. 1 K. avev 6€ TaTpos TEKVOY OUK Ely ToT’ Gy. 


There is no other example in Menander of the long penult in zarpos 
(-i), the syllable being either short,—E. 449, Pk. 307,?% 320, 8. 39, 53, 
60 K., 520. 2, 603. 1, 656, 808; or common E. 351, 8. 99, 660 K.; common 
also in its derivatives: marpua, Kl. 23°°; duorarpia, G. 10; rarpwos, 68. 
1 K., 349. 3, 403. 3(?)!; warpw’ 582.1. However, this lengthening in 
matpos (-t) is frequent in tragedy, Tucker noting one hundred and 
thirty instances, not to mention the same prosody in the derivatives of 
this root. All this evidence strengthens the conclusion already formed 
(p. 61), in discussing the prosody of réxvoy, that Clemens Alex. is quot- 
ing a tragic poet or a reminiscence of tragedy in a comic poet. 


694 K. ppovnow aoKkav adpoow pn Xxpw idols 


> \ U A \ ~ ” 
émel KEKANOEL KAL GU TaVTEAWS APpwr. 


a&dpwv occurs in Menander only once elsewhere, 1096 K., and there 
the penult is short. Other compounds of the same root are frequent, but 
a preceding short syllable always remains short: a¢povws, Pk. 308; 
dpovew (xara-) G. 27, E. 15, S. 297, 6.2 K., 88, 93. 1, 301. 10, 538. 5, 
676; ¢porvris EK. 38; dpovrifw E. 552, 752 K.; or else is of common quan- 
tity: dpdviuos, 421 K.; dpovris, 539. 8 K.; dpovrifw 653 K. 

As the uncertain reading in the second line of our passage indicates,® 
there is corruption present, but rots appovcw Dobree, approved by 
Blaydes, heals the fault, especially since it gives a trisyllabic anapest 
(~~ —) in the fourth place, of which there are eighteen examples in 728 
sound verses of Menander (White, 150),—sufficient evidence of the 
poet’s readiness to use this form. 


que rem alienam augent sua,” he seems to have reconsidered, for he fails to mention 
it in his Collect. Cr., but admits that the passage is corrupt. Neither évavriocs 
(2) Kock, rotot trav meédas (cf. v. 2) Blaydes, nor tpooreaciy adXorpio ExeELv 
Blaydes, is satisfactory. 

29 Sachtschal’s scansion, 13, involves a faulty anapest in the second place; cf. 
White, 154 f. 

30 Gachtschal’s scansion, 7b., involves a spondee in the fourth foot(!) 

31 Spengel’s very doubtful conjecture. amwavtwy Kock, nearer the mss., cf. Blay- 
des. 

32 Kock fails to give the important variant xpiOnon which may be correct, cf. 
Ta@v énta codav aropbeypmara, v. 160, ed. Wofflin, SMA. (1886), 289 f.; Nauck; 
Herwerden. 


64 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


E. 118 altos tva Kepdavere Opaxuas dwoeKa. 


The prosody of épaxun has been the subject of much controversy.** 
In Achaeus 55 N., its only occurrence in tragedy, the penult is of com- 
mon quantity. In comedy it is generally short (seventeen times in 
Aristophanes), but it is long: Arist. Vesp. 691 (anapests), Pax 1201, 
Pl. 1019; Philipp. 9. 7 K.; Antiph. 147. 5; Alex. 2. 6 (anapests) ; Plato 
com. 174.17; Macho, ap. Athen. 13. 581 b. 8. In the passages of Aristoph- 
anes just cited, Bergk followed by Dindorf et al., restored the form éapxun 
mentioned by Hesychius s.v.; while Gaisford, ad Suid. I, 1058, against 
the judgment of Thomas Magister, read the form dpayun, cited by Suid. 
s.v. But Aristophanes would scarcely for the sake of meter have intro- 
duced into a few passages a dubious Attic form.** One might assume 
that the passages cited are all corrupt,® if their number did not preclude 
such a view. The simplest solution is to believe, with Wilamowitz, that 
the occasional length of the penult became a poetic tradition in comedy, 
justified by the poets on the grounds of metrical expediency. Compare 
the treatment of “wind” in English poetry. 

If we grant this metrical license to the comic poets, it is unnecessary 
in E. 118, our point of departure. to assume corruption.* Neither, on 
the other hand, can we draw any conclusions from this especial case as 
to the general practice of productio by Menander. It is interesting to 
note that elsewhere the disputed syllable is placed by Menander where 
it would be of common quantity, that is, in the arsis of an odd foot: J. 
II. 11, 8. 177, 197 K., 319. 3, 319. 7, 327. 3. Did Menander have a feel- 
ing for the length of the syllable? 


633. LK det TOUS TEvOMmEeVOUS MEXpPL AV CHa ToVveLY. 


mexpe is found but twice in tragedy, Eur. 953. 32 N., Soph. Aj. 571 
(commonly suspected), and then with short penult. Menander uses 
it in 8. 321, 588. 3 K. both times with short penult. Bentley’s emenda- 


38 Cf. Bernhardy ad Suid. s.v. dpayu7; Bachmann, Lexici Aristophanei speci- 
men, Frankfurt (1884), 6; Kopp; Korte; Wilamowitz; Leo, GdNachr. (1907), 327; 
Leeu.; Capps, ad E. 118; together with commentators (esp. Bergk, Blaydes, Din- 
dorf) on Arist. Vesp. 691, Paz 1201, Pl. 1019. 

34 So Kopp, Bachmann (quoting Roper, progr. Danzig [1878], 25-27) s.v. dapx- 
un. Opayyun, though the correct form theoretically, has no existence outside of 
Suidas, who, perhaps, followed the reading of a corrupt manuscript (Pearson, 
cf. Bernhardy). 

’> Bachmann, 7, cites many emendations, all of which Kopp justly rejects. 

36 6paxpos iva Kepdavecey a’Tw dwoexa Housman. 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS 65 


tion mevoyevous for ywoueévovs removed one fault in the verse, which is 
quoted by Stobaeus in an undoubtedly corrupt form. In my opinion 
the verse still needs attention,’ for the prosody of péxypc as the verse 
now stands is open to grave objection. 


H. fr. Lex. Sabb. vuv 6€ Tots €& doTEews 
KUVNYETALS HKOVOL TEPLNYNTOMAL 
Tas axpadas. 


The prosody of the last word bothered Kock, RhMus. XLVIII (1893), 
587, and Kretschmar, 59, because they failed to see that the quotation 
began not at the beginning but at the middle of a verse. The remedy 
was given by Wilamowitz l.c. 40 n. 2. 

I have now discussed the exceptions, or supposed exceptions, to the 
prosodic rule of mutes and liquids in Menander. The results of the 
examination are as follows: In the strong position we found two lines 
in which a syllable remained short before words beginning with B), 
though elsewhere, in comedy and tragedy alike, syllables are lengthened 
before this combination in these two particular words. Examination 
of the parallels presented by Meineke showed that, apart from these two 
doubtful passages in Menander, there is but one passage (possibly two) 
in Middle or New Comedy in which our manuscript tradition gives any 
evidence whatever of a shortening of a syllable in the strong position. 
Because of the very meagerness of the evidence, the conclusion followed 
that the text in all these passages is probably corrupt. 

As to the weak position, thirteen passages have been discussed. 
Our conclusions may be summarized as follows: Tragic influence, 
five instances, a@iBprxa 3877 K.; axwaiwy 1108 K., Men. incert.; réxvov, 
matpos 1085 K., Men. incert.; 67\a E. 107. Epic, one instance, pirpa 
Pk. 393, tragic passage. Metrical convention, one instance, dpaxuas, 
E. 118, similar use in Aristophanes. Corrupt verse, two instances, ézi 
kpetrrov 712. 1 K.; weypr 633. 1 K. Suspected, two instances, addorpiors 
557. 4 K., sense obscure; adpoow 694. 1 KX., following verse corrupt, rots 
adpoow a probable emendation. Lengthening wrongly assumed, two 
instances, xara xpatos Pk. 229; aypadas H. fr. Lex. Sabb. 

In view of this evidence, in view of what appears to have been the 


37 “versus nondum persanatus est’’—Mein. IV 258. rovs ye L. Dindorf, ad Ste- 
phanus Thes. s.v. méexpt (‘‘probabiliter,’’ Mein. V 106); rods mevomevous wex pe 
av ov, Mein.; rovs mevomevous (yap) det Blaydes; Kérte accepted the reading of 
the manuscript while Wilamowitz suspected it. 


66 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


practice of other poets of New and Middle Comedy,** in view of the col- 
loquial tone of Menander’s trimeter—so well fitted to be the medium of 
the comedy of manners—I think we must conclude (a) that any arbi- 
trary departure from the Attic speech of his day, either by correptio in 
the strong position, or productio in the weak position,®* was avoided by 


88 Of the ten examples of productio in Middle and New Comedy cited by Korte, 
Wilamowitz’s searching criticism left but four. Of these four, two, Men. 557. 4 K.., 
633, are undoubtedly corrupt, as I have already shown. That leaves but two 
examples on which to build a theory:—one of these, Philipp. 25. 5 K. (Plut. V. 
Demos. 12) is a corrupt line, running thus in the manuscript: 





BJ £ U 


Darel = 
du Ov aoeBovvTa 6 TETAOS Eppayn Mécos; 


The hiatus has been removed by different emendations: 6u’ dv aaeBouv’ 6 tET)dOS 
éppayn weécos Sintenis, Korte; 6c’ dv aceBovvd’ 6 réemdos Greppayn pesos Cobet, 
Kock; 6’ dv aoeBovvra 6’ 6 métdos Eppayn pecos, Mein. At best the quantity 
of the first syllable of wézAos is uncertain here. In tragedy, there are fourteen 
cases of its lengthening, twice, as it happens, with pyyvume: 
Aesch. Pers. 468 pnéas 6€ mémous 
Eur. Hec. 558 AaBovoa merous EF Akpas Erwuldos 
eppnée Navovas. 

In comedy it is long, once, in an obviously paratragedic passage, Hermipp. 6 K.,cf. 
Cobet. Studniczka, Die aligr. Tracht, Wien (1886), 135, has shown that 7ém)os was 
not in common use after Homer, being confined to tragedy or else referring dis- 
tinctly to the sacred Peplos of the goddess. Therefore even if one could grant the 
correctness of the text which Korte adopts, one could not find in the passage a 
proof of the general use of productio by the writers of Comedy, but merely a fur- 
ther instance of tragic parody. 

Korte’s only remaining test passage is Diph. 38. 2 K. 

6 XaGBpiov. Krnoirros, elonynoauny. 

Apart from the general freedom with which poets treat proper names, the natural 
quantity of the antepenult of XaGpias is uncertain, the word occurring in poetry 
so far as I know only in Timocl. 5 K., where it is short. Probably Diph. l.c. is 
corrupt and we should read with Bergk (cf. Blaydes) 6 tov XaGpiov. 

Salvers adds to Ko6rte’s list Eub. 107. 8 K. 

€v Ovo“a TOAAOLS, TPWTOS, ATPWTOS, dacts, 

In v. 4, an hexameter, the syllable is short. The prosody may be explained by the 
fact that the word belongs to the high style, occurring in Pindar, the tragedians, 
Plato, Aristotle and late writers. é 

Sachtschal cites adesp. 231 K. dvamXexe and adesp. 398 rerpurnueéern, as apar- 
ent examples of productio. Apart from the suspicion of corruption (cf. Mein.), 
one scarcely cares to base an argument on verses whose pedigree cannot be more 
definitely traced. 

39 T know of no evidence that correptio Attica was a different thing in the mouths 
of the common people at the end of the IV century than at the beginning. For the 


MUTES AND LIQUIDS 67 


Menander, who was above all a metrical artist*®; (b) that any verses, 
in which such departures occur, are to be understood, if supported by par- 
allels, as quotations, parodies, or reminiscences of other poets; and (c) 
that all other such verses, if this latter explanation seems improbable,*! 
are to be held under suspicion. In short Menander’s prosodic treatment 
of syllables before a mute and liquid was not a whit different from that of 
Aristophanes. To use the words of Wilamowitz, 


Natirlich ist Menander so korrekt wie Aristophanes und die kleinen Fehler 
der Ueberlieferung zu heben Bagatelle; dass manchmal noch Korruptelen unheil- 
bar bleiben, lehrt jeden die Praxis, darum sind es doch Korruptelen. 


earlier period, the evidence of Aristophanes is conclusive; for the later period that 
of Menander and the other later comic poets. 

49 But ef. Cobet, N. L.54; Richards, ClQu. II (1908), 134. The famous reply of 
Menander on the eve of a dramatic contest (Plut. De glor. Athen. 347 f.): vj rods 
eols Eywye TeToinka THY Kwywdiav’ @KovounTar yap % didbeors* bei 6’ auTn Ta 
oTlLXldla Emaoat, was a rhetorical way of stating his own emphasis on plot and on 
portrayal of character (67 Kai ai’tol Ta tpayuaTa TeV NOywY avayKaLoTEpa 
Kal Kuptwrepa vouifovow). The new fragments have borne out this judgment, 
but they have given us no “ground for thinking that he was comparatively in- 
different to the words (Richards, I. ¢.).”’ 

“1 Schade, who attempts to explain all cases of lengthening in the weak posi- 
tion as due to the metrical stress, 22, criticises Kopp et al.: 


“hoe minime sufficere mihi videtur, siquis dicit locum quendam ex alio poeta sumptum esse, cum 
certum locum non afferat vel afferre non possit.”’ 


It is, in my opinion, merely a question as to where the burden of proof is to 
be placed. It does not always require legal evidence to produce moral cer- 
tainty, and a word may be convicted of tragic or epic associations though one 
cannot cite author, work, or verse which is borrowed or parodied. 


CHAPTER III. 
OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE METRI CAUSA. 


A poet’s style is determined largely by three factors: the thought- 
content, the spoken idiom in which the thought is expressed, and the 
metrical form to which the idiom is accommodated. The use and omis- 
sion of the article in Greek prose has a well-recognized and very definite 
influence upon thought-content: as its use limits the concept of the sub- 
stantive which it modifies to a definite individual, so its omission removes 
all such limitation. This principle, so clear in prose, must not be neg- 
lected in the interpretation of verse, especially verse that closely imitated 
the speech of daily life. The commentator’s first duty in any case of 
omission is to seek an explanation in the thought which the poet is ap- 
parently endeavoring to express. The commentator must ask himself: 
Is this noun, from which the article has been omitted, unlimited in its 
application? If, on the contrary, it is clear that it refers to a definite 
individual or thing, and furthermore if there appear in prose no parallels 
for such omission, then and then only may he admit the influence of the 
metrical form upon the diction. 

The commentator must distinguish between two classes of phenomena: 
(a) words or phrases of such prosodic character that they could never 
stand in the iambic trimeter, if conjoined with the article; and (b) in- 
stances in which a variation in prose usage offered to the poet the choice 
of two phrases, practically equivalent in meaning, of which he might on 
occasion find only one to be metrically suited to his verse. 

With these fundamental principles in mind, the question may now be 
considered: Did Menander, the writer of verse so closely imitative of the 
speech of the common people, by a tour de force ever omit the article for 
the sake of meter alone? The only systematic treatment of this subject 
in the broad field of comedy and tragedy is that of Sachtschal, De com- 
corum Graecorum sermone metro accommodato, diss. Breslau (1908), 27-35. 
As many of his illustrations are drawn from Menander, it will be conve- 
nient perhaps to follow his general method of presentation, without com- 
mitting ourselves thereby as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of his con- 
clusions. 

68 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE 69 


Proper names form the first class which Sachtschal considers. Though 
he cites no passages from Menander I have noted in our author certain 
apparent exceptions to the rules which govern the use of the article with 
proper names: 


E. 585 Tpayixny €pa@ cou pnow ée& Abyns OAnv. 


In the citation of the names of dramas, usage varied. The article was 
always used in Aristophanes, cf. Ran. 855, 863 f., Ach. 555 (Fuller, De 
articult in antiquis Graecis comoediis usu, diss. Leipzig [1888], 38), and 
generally in Aristotle. The Alexandrians, however, as the scholia, the 
lexicons, and the florilegia show, preferred to omit the article. Demos. 
19. 246; Arist. Rhet. ad Alex. 19. 1433 b; and Arist. Poet. 1. 1447 b 21 
(Bywater) ; 16. 1455 a 2, 4; 18. 1456 a 2; 24. 1460 a 31, 32, 35, are suffi- 
cient examples to show that the article was sometimes omitted in prose 
even as early as Menander. The poet therefore had two forms which 
he might use according to the convenience of his verse. Since the longer 
form was unmetrical, bringing together four long syllables, Menander 
here took the permitted alternative and omitted the article. The use 
of the article without the preposition (i. e. rs Avyns) would have 
necessitated a complete recasting of the verse, in addition to the re- 
sulting confusion between Auge the drama and Auge the person. The 
poet avoided this form as metrically inconsistent and logically disad- 
vantageous. 


BK. 234, 255, 260: | Tavporo| Novs | ef. 300, 
but E. 442, 579: | rots Tav| poroni| ovs. 


Kithner-Gerth II 1. 600 says: ‘‘Die Namen von Festen entbehren, 
insofern sie schon an sich bestimmt, des Artikels.”” So also in inscrip- 
tions, of the classical period. !n later inscriptions, e.g., IG. II 466 
(II. cent. B.C.), 467 (I. cent. B.C.), the article occurs “without apparent 
reason,” says Meisterhans-Schwyzer, 228f. I suspect that even at an 
earlier period, the usage of the spoken language varied. Menander’s 
departure from the rule laid down by the grammarians may be paralleled 
by Aristophanes’ indiscriminate use and omission of the article with the 
name of the ‘'Thesmophoria’”’: with the article, Eecl. 223, Thesm. 182, 
377; without the article, Av. 1519, Thesm. 80. This is another instance 
of the poets’ accommodating a phrase to the demands of their verse 
without departing from the usage of prose. 


70 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 379 aypvov KaNiWar wéXayos Aiyatas ados. 


348. 1K. Kec AuTa@v Aiyatov aduvpov Bados. 


These verses are adapted from tragedy (Eur. Tro. 88 and 1, respec- 
tively), which omitted the article more freely than did the popular speech 
(Kiihner-Gerth IT, 1.640). Hence the violation of the rule that the names 
of seas should take the article! is not surprising. 

The next class discussed by Sachtschal are supposed instances of the 
omission of the article, metri causa, with the oblique cases of avOpwrot, 
or martes avOpwro. From Menander he cites: 


798 K. Movos Eat amapnyopnrov avOpwro.s Epws. 
669. 2 K. Naurpol, Ta 6 Evdov racw avOpwros icot. 
oe TO pnoev Abtkely Tacw avOpwrots TpETeL. 


It is searcely necessary to add to this list other instances, which may be 
easily found in Jacobs’ Ind. com. dict. But the omission of the article 
from this phrase is not peculiar to Menander or even to poetry. The 
very passages which Sachtschal cites from Thucydides show that the 
article was omitted with nearly as much freedom in prose; the article 
used: 1. 21. 2, 141. 5; 2. 6. 2, 8. 4, 48. 2, 54.3; 3. 39. 4, etc.; the article 
omitted: 1. 1. 2, 93. 6; 2. 54. 1, 64. 3; 4. 34. 2, ete. One would indeed 
expect such omission in general statements. It is difficult at times for 
us to determine where the Greeks drew the line between the general 
and the specific with such class words as av$pwmo., save in so far as 
the very presence or omission of the article gives us a clue. As for 
racw avOpmros, Menander was not compelled by metrical considera- 
tions to omit the article, as is clearly shown by the two passages which 
are cited by Sachtschal, 29 n. 3: 


408 K. ap éaTiv apetns Kal Blov did6acKados 
éXevfepov Tots Tacw avOpwros aypos; 


668 K. To\A@y pice Tos Tac avOpwrois KAK@V 
OvTwWY mEYyLoTOV EoTLV 7) AUTN KaKOV. 


The difference in meaning between racw Tots avOpwros, Tacw avOpwrors, 
Trois Taow avOpwros, though clear, was of minor importance. The first 


1Cf. Kithner-Gerth, II 1. 600; Kallenberg, Der Artikel b. Namen v. Landern, 
Stddten, u. Meeren in der gr. Prosa, Phil. XLIX (1890), 545. 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE 71 


form was metrically unallowable. The poet used the other two forms as 
suited his convenience. Thus it came about that he preferred the second 
of the three forms; but in omitting the article metri causa he did not vio- 
late the practice of prose. 

Sachtschal notes next the omission of the article in oaths. As I have 
shown in my chapter on the Oaths in Menander, pp. 36, 9, the article may 
be omitted only from the following oaths which his characters use: v7 
(rov) Aia, ua (rov) Ala, pds (Tov) Oeov. I there noted further that this 
same variation occurs in prose. Of course there is a theoretical difference 
between the forms where the article is used and those in which it is 
omitted. The article accompanying the name of a god should, as the 
grammarians tell us (ef. Kithner-Gerth U 1. 600), add emphasis or give 
definite reference to well-known rites or cults. But from these three 
oaths the article was omitted in prose and in common speech, not for 
the sake of any fine distinctions in meaning, but because these oaths 
were used the most frequently (cf. Blass, RhMus. XLIV [1889], 11). 
For that reason they had lost much of their character as oaths and had 
become little more than asseverative adverbs. As for the poets, they 
took advantage of that very variation to choose whichever form was bet- 
ter adapted to their verse.2, So among the examples that Sachtschal 
cited from Menander, in H. 14 (where, however, Leo added trav metri 
causa, ef. Capps) and §. 88, the omission of the article might be con- 
sidered a matter of mere convenience. But in 


Be 15 My) KaTapporvnons, Tpos Heap 
S. 107 Tov aoeBn. pn, mpos Oewy, 
E. 543 Oavuacrov oiov, mpos Peay Kal datuovwr. 


(as also 600 K., 562, Kn. 18, ef. pp. 4, 5), the omission of the article was 
a metrical necessity, since its use as a modifier of dea would have 
brought together four long syllables, a combination forbidden in the 
iambic trimeter. On E. 543, Sachtschal might have noted the similar 
objection to the use of the article with dauéywy. In all these cases, as in 


E. 183 Tov decrorov ‘ari, vy Tov ’ArOAXw Kal Oeovs, 
the omission of the article, though immediately occasioned by met- 
2 Meinhardt, 21, notes that unelided v7 Ata in Arist. and the other comic poets 


almost always occurs at the end of verses or sentences. So also in Menander, 
three out of four times. The oath, in other words, is a convenient verse-tag. 


~I 
bo 


STUDIES IN MENANDER 


rical convenience or necessity, was in harmony with the usage of prose, 
as I have already shown.‘ 

It will be noted that, apart from oaths and other formal phrases such 
as ody Geois 399 K., Beots ExOpos* Pk. 78, 104, and ex de@y S. 257, Menan- 
der preferred to use the article with Oeds, except where it was inten- 
tionally indefinite and general. So, without the article, Sophrona’s 
despairing cry, E. 434, echoed in 453: “‘Is there any god in Olympus 
or anywhere who might pity us?”’ But with the article: E. 544, 549, 
552, 8. 171, 184, 269, G. 8, 44, Kl. 26. The article seems to limit the 
word definitely to the members of the Greek pantheon. As to the frag- 
ments in CAF., the evidence is not so conclusive, because of the difficulty 
in ascertaining the exact coloring of each passage. I have noted the use 
of the article: 209. 1, 235. 1, 449, 129. 2, 319. 2, ete.; and its omission: 
223. 1, 585. 2, 609. 1. It is possible that in some of these passages met- 
rical convenience may have had a slight influence. There is, however, 
no adequate proof of it. 

On p. 30 Sachtschal discusses passages in which the article is omitted 
with nouns governed by prepositions. The principle involved is stated 
thus by Kihner-Gerth, II, 1. 605 f.: 


“Ungemein haufig ist die Weglassung des Artikels in der Verbindung mit Pra- 
positionen, weil alsdann der Ausdruck einen adverbialen Charakter annimmt und 
die Gegenstiinde weniger bestimmt hervortreten.”’ 


In purely adverbial phrases, the use of the article is avoided be- 
cause the idea is indefinite. Menander furnishes many examples: 60’ 
avaykny 604 K.; € avaykns S. 266; dra xevns S. 260, 827; ev xixdw Fn. 
10, 22, Ph. 54; é€& émudpouns Pk. 148; xaé’. juepay E. 545, 301. 2 K., 325. 
13, 554. 1; xara xparos Pk. 198, 229, 407; xara Aoyor EK. 235, Ki. 85, 819 
K., 588, 319. 6; xara cxodnv E. 321, 448, Pk. 39; xara tporov Pk. 242, 
243, 248. 1 K.; zpos Biay S. 214, Pk. 186, Kl]. 69; zpos juepay (?) J. II. 
13; b26 vikra G. 7. In other cases the article is omitted in such phrases 
because of the general, abstract, or formal character of the expression. 
Thus: 6.’ opynv Ki. 59; Ons eis Noyous Pk. 251; eis opynv Pk. 43; eis 
tpopnv H. 28; eis rpudnv 285 K.; & aodadet S. 25; zpos todopxiov Pk. 233. 
Lastly there are prepositional phrases, where it is conceivable so far as 
the sense of the passage is concerned that the article might have been 
used. Most of these, however, are conventional phrases from which the 


3 See in addition the discussion of Amplificatio, p.7. For the omission with the 
second of a series of codrdinated substantives, see p. 79. 
4Cf. Leo, Herm. XLIII (1908), 146 n. 4. 


~] 


OMISSLON OF THE ARTICLE 


article is usually omitted in prose: du’ huépa 364 K.; ad’ brepwov S. 17; 
eis atjprov H. 162; eis ddEav BAErwv E. 487; els d€ovTd por wavy Karpov S. 294, 
ef. Axw Tuxns eis Karpov oixeias Pk. 354; eis xaddv S. 65; eis (és) kdpaxas S. 
138, 155, Pk. 206, J. II. 24, 971 K.; eds waxapiay (?) E. 389; ets otkov 
Pk. 290; év vuxri E. 35; év obpavw 209 K.; &x ravrds NOyou G. 72; eri ynpws 
66 671 K.; xara Oadarray Ki. 46, 488 K.; rpds ‘Epuais Ki. 65. 

With certain words the article is always omitted: 6.’ ayopas 494 K.; 
eis ayopav 962 K.; év ayopa KI. 48, 302. 4 K.; zpos ayopav Ki. 49, 64; 
and eis aypov G. 76, Ki. 56; & aypo G. 4, 406. 2 K.; & aypov Pk. 174, 
G. 18, 32, Ki. 54. See also examples of dorv, infra. With certain other 
words it is always used. Thus with words that refer to certain definite 
parts of the stage-setting: ao rns Oipas 8.89; mpds rHv Bipav G. 26, 
558 K.; mpdcbe(v) rev Ovpav S. 142, 190, Pk. 109; zpds rats Oipas E. 
462, J. I. 19, 420 K., 830. And in certain idiomatic phrases, such as, 
eis Ta AoiTA S. 291; els ro weANov Pk. 223; Evexa rov pédAdNovTos Pk. 43. 

But in still other prepositional phrases, there is a variation in usage: 
év Trav yerrovwy Ph. 13; but &y yerrovwy Pk. 27, 853 K., ef. ev éavrov S. 
125; ék rov wéecov S. 144, but &k weoov Pk. 133, 250 K.; & 7@ pEéeow S. 
150, but & peow S. 256, with which compare ava péooy 531. 18 K.,° els 
mecoy S. 55, Pk. 272; ek rns wodews S. 283, 395 K., and év rn rode S. 
175, but xara rodkw 466. 4K., 474, and els modu E. 245, ef. kar’ adorn, 
97 K., €& dorews EH. 361, & adore G. 79, 405.1 K.; iro rs Hdovns (speci- 
fic) 23. 4 K., but pos ndovnv (abstract) Ph. 38; eis rv oixiay 8. 304, 537. 
5 K., 420. 3, but eis oixiay 582.2 K., 202. 2, and év oixia 874 K., cf. p. 
32. In many of these cases it is possible to detect a slight difference in 
meaning between the longer and the shorter forms, but the prevailing 
motive for the variation seems to be metrical convenience, not to say 
metrical necessity. 

Sometimes the article is retained in prepositional phrases, where we 
might expect its omission. Thus 


E. 290 érepa pvupia 
€v Tols TOTOLS TOLAUTA Yylyvedbar didel. 

The use of rois is remarkable, since the reference seems to be very 
general, however, the article seems to suggest the expansion: rots wéros 
trois Trav veanav. A possible parallel to this is found in the unmetrical 
line 


5 ava wepos Nauck. 


74 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


ar A t e ~ L 3 \ \ ~ \ 
S. 178 Movas eTalpal TPEXOVOLY ETL Ta OELTVA Kal 


where the prepositional phrase might be expanded to éml ra detrva rev 
év tn wmode Cf. Antiph. 229 K. Leo, GéNachr. (1907), 333 defended the 
retention of the article, feeling that it was by no means superfluous, but 
the reading he proposed involves an objectional over-lapping anapest 
(+ v,v,—+) in the fifth foot (White). Mazon, RPhil. XXXII (1908), 
72, thought to find a parallel in ps.-Demos. 59. 33 xaml ra deimva Exwv 
a’TnVv TavTaxXot EopeveTo Grou Tivo, but here the article is anticipatory 
of the following relative clause, cf. Kiihner-Gerth, II 2. 400 f. Inasmuch 
as the ms. reading is corrupt, and 74, though capable of logical interpre- 
tation, is not essential to the understanding of the passage, and no satis- 
factory emendation has been suggested which involves its retention, 
I prefer following Croiset and Capps to read: 


movas €Talpar dtatpexovo’ ert detmva Kal 


It may be noted that there is a similar uncertainty of reading Xen. 
Mem. 3. 14, é7ore 6€ tev cuvivTwy éxi detrvov Where some mss. give 
TO O€LTVOV. 

Sachtschal, 33, cites examples from Menander in which the article, 
needed to convey the idea of possession, is omitted. 


806 K. dikas ypapouevos pos yoveis waiver, TAaXav. 


920. 1 K. untnp TéOvynKe Taly adEeAMPaly Taty dvoLy 
TaUTaw* Tpeper 6€ TaAAaKy TLS TOU TaTpOS 
av’Tas, 4Bpa THS UNTpOS a’TwY yevouern. 


Pei TOUT’ éoTL UNTNP’ 6 Tpodiyos CnTNTEOs.® 


The last passage may be disposed of in a word: whrnp is general and 
not specific, ‘‘That’s a mother,”’ cf. 


367 K. Toul’ ératpos éotiv dvTws.” 


The other two passages are more perplexing. In both instances, as 
in many of those cited by Sachtschal from other comic poets, the sub- 
stantives that are unmodified by the article are nouns denoting rela- 
tionship. Says Kithner-Gerth, II 1. 604 d.: 


® Cf. Leeu., Capps. 
7 Cobet, N. L. 70 (approved by Blaydes, Adver. II 217), condemned this as 
non-Greek. It is Menandrean anyway. 


~I 
or 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE 


“Der Artikel fehlt zuweilen bei verwandtschaftlichen und ihnlichen Benen- 
nungen, bei denen die Beziehung von selbst klar ist, als tatnp, unTnp, TAaTTOSs, 
vids, adeA@os, yovets, Tatdes, avnp, Ehemann, yuv7y, Ehefrau, u. a. (doch nicht, 
wenn von einzelnen bestimmten Individuen die Rede ist).’’ 


Examples of such omission of the article in CAF. are so numerous that 
I need not give examples. If 806 be a general statement, as it may be, 
then there is nothing in the omission of the article to excite comment. 
However, it is almost certain that we should read rots for rpés. Blaydes, 
ad Arist. Vesp. 894,8 has shown that the normal construction after 
ypamouat is the direct object of the person indicted, ef. Arist. Vesp. 
894, 907; Pl. Huthyp. 2b, Apol. 19 b, Legg. 6. 754 e; Xen. Mem. 4. 8. 4; 
Demos. 18. 251, 59.52; Aesch. 1. 1; Luc. Men. 2. But in 520. 1, there is 
no reason to doubt the text, and it is evident that the substantive refers 
to a very definite individual (cf. Blaydes). Examples of the same phe- 
nomena may be found in 


494.2 K. Mocyxiwv, untnp éwpa Ts Kopns ép’ Apyaros.® 
403. 6 K. aac. 6’ apyadea oTiv, ovk Evol pov, 


viw moh waddor, bvyarpl. 
Unfortunately, I have been unable to find parallels to such usage either 
in prose, or in the “new” Menander. Fuller, 57, brings as examples 
from Aristophanes: 


Lys. 882 eywy’ éNe@ Ont’ aN’ GuedANS alTw TaTHp 
éoTu. 
Ran. 1149 ovTw y’ av ein Tpos TaTpos TUUBwpPLXOS. 


The second is a formal prepositional phrase, from which we might expect 
the article to be omitted. As to the first, I am not certain but that it 
should be rendered: “. . . but hehas a neglectful father.” How- 
ever, if it is to be rendered: “. . . but his father is neglectful,” 
then the parallel is certain. Notice that the speaker is the wife of the 
person described. 

Assuming that the text is correct in 494. 2 K. and 403. 6,'° as well as 
in 520. 1, one is compelled to suppose either an omission of the article 


8 See also id. Adver.; Herwerden, Collect. crit. 

9 Cf. Blaydes. 

10 403 K. is from the notoriously corrupt Plocitum, quoted by Aul. Gell. 494 
(Phot., Suid. s.v. wé€u7revv) has also required treament; ef. Bentley, Kock. 


76 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


metri causa, contrary to the usage of prose—an hypothesis which is very 
improbable, especially as in these verses the article could have been used 
without very violent change of the lines—, or to assume that here we have 
evidence for the omission of the article from terms of relationship in 
colloquial speech. The latter assumption seems very probable to me. 
The speaker in 403. 6 K., is the father speaking of his own children. 
494. 2 K., the speaker addressing Moschion, omits the article when refer- 
ring to Moschion’s mother. 520. 1, the speaker apparently in a prologue, 
may be closely related either by blood or affection to those of whom he is 
speaking: possibly he is a guardian spirit like Agnoia of the Periceiro- 
mene or Lar Familiaris of Plaut. Aulularia. But more probably like 
the customary speaker of the prologue he is under the influence of the 
“tragic style,” to which the omission of the article is normal. In mod- 
ern tongues, it is customary to omit all demonstratives or possessives in 
speaking of one’s nearest kin, unless it is desired to make a contrast with 
the relatives of another. The common nouns become the practical 
equivalents of proper names. For ancient Greek usage, conclusive evi- 
dence is lacking, but there is nothing in the spirit of the language, it 
seems to me, which would make improbable such an hypothesis. 

This hypothesis is confirmed by a very striking passage, in which the 
article is omitted from the ancient Greek equivalents of master and mis- 
tress. The metrical objections to the use of the article might have been 
avoided by a slight and easy recasting of the verse. Other reasons for 
the omission must, therefore, be sought. 


Pei TAMTONN. Eraua@ drahopas KexTNwEvny. 


The word xexrnuern is so rare that the unknown commentator in Bekk. 
Anecd. 102. 20 (ef. Schol. Luc. Dial. meretr. 9. 1) felt called upon to 
explain it. I have noted its use in the following passages, always with 
the article: H. 37 (cf. Capps, article required by presence of personal 
pronoun, rns éuns xextnuevns), Arist. Eccl. 1126, Plutarch (a passage I 
have been unable to find save as it is quoted by Stephanus Thes.), Soph. 
695.2 N., Luc. As. 11, 27; cf. 6 xexrnuévos, Eur. I. A. 715, Arist. Pl. 4; 
and of xexrnuevor, Aesch. Supp. 337, Plut. Vit. Nic. 29. The omission 
of the article in Pk. 72 was noticed first by Leo, Herm. XLIITI (1908), 
146. 6) ohddpa trav Kextnuevny Herwerden, was rejected by Schmidt, 
Herm. XLIV (1909), 411 n. 2, who noted a possible parallel for the ms. 
reading in 


Pk. 169 el un Ye TavTaTacw av’rov nA€our, 
t , ee ! IC eS eer 5 
KQKOOalMov OUT dEeoTOTHY. OVO EvUTVLOV 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE ‘i 


Here Headlam’s restoration is confirmed by Jensen.!! Another sug- 
gested parallel is: 


Arist. Ran. 750 Kal Tapakovwy deaToTwv 

arr av \Nad@or; 
At least Fuller, 53, considers the noun to be definite in its application; 
but it seems to me a caseof the general shading into the particular. 

In all these three passages, it will be noted that a slave is speaking of 
his own master or mistress. Both the passages from Menander come 
from monologues. Here again, it seems to me, the hypothesis may be 
advanced that the usage reflects the language of the household. The 
slaves affectionately and familiarly, it may be presumed, omitted the 
article with the title of master or mistress, especially when speaking inthe 
privacy of the home or of their own thoughts. When speaking of an- 
other’s master or to a slave who belonged to a different estate, the use 
of the article would, in most instances, be essential to clearness.!” 

It is important while treating the omission of the article with terms of 
relationship that refer to definite individuals, not to include’ cases in 
which the omission is due to the position of the substantive in the predi- 
cate. In many of these examples in Menander a possessive pronoun 
limits the noun to a definite individual. It chances that Procksch, Ueber 
dem Gebrauch des Artikels, insbesondre beim Prddicat, Phil. XL (1881), 
1 ff., cites no exact parallels to this usage, but the general principle which 
he establishes no doubt holds good in this particular class of cases. 


He 320 TOU yap Tatolou 
MNTEPA GE VOULoAs 
G. 59 olovel 
vouioas €avTov TaTépa Topicas’ ae 
EK. 319 av 6 ekeracOn Taira kal darn tarp 
@v ovTos avrouv. 
E. 231 TaTépa yap Tov TaLdiov 


alTov Tow oxXEd0V 


Pear el wev Te To.oUT HY, IloNEuwr, oidv hare 


duets TO yeyovos, Kal YaueTnyv yuvatka cov ———— 


Korte, BSG. LX (1908), 105, questioned the reading because of the omission 
of the article. 

12 The theory advanced is essentially that of Capps, ad Pk. 142, 144 (72,74 Kor). 
Cf. Sud., Herm. XLVI (1911), 145. 

13 Though the papyrus is badly broken, the construction seems certain. 


78 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


8. 60 eTeloav THY NEYoUTAaY KaTaLabw 


TitOnv Exeivou TpwToV ovaay, 


Pk. 10 didwor THY KOpnY ws OvyaTepa 
auTns Exel. 
In E. 475, the article would be omitted in any case, since the substan- 
tive is indefinite: 
avTos Yeyovws TE TaLolov vofov maTnp 
ovK Ecxov, 0d EOwka ovyyvwuNY TAapwY 


So E. 251 ef rpddipos dvTws éEoti cov, Where rpddiyos is both indefinite 
and predicate. But in E. 562, the omission of the article is due to an 
entirely different reason: 


~ ye) \ ~ 
GX’ arayayew map’ avdpos adtou bvyarépa 


: \ \ ! vy , A 
ayabov ov Kpivets, Duckpiv7; 


ai’rov is to be construed with @vyarépa: ‘‘One’s own daughter.”’” The 
omission of the article both with @vyarepa and avépés is due to the gen- 
eral nature of the question. Onesimus suggests a general principle, 
which Smicrines is at liberty to apply to his own situation (ef. Capps). 
For the form of expression see, Thucy. 6. 59. 3 Alavrién tw mardi Ovya- 
Tépa €avtov . . . éowxev, 8.87.1 TH orpaTia tpootagéeav Edy Tayoy 
éautov Urapxov, Isae. 8.1 tov yap nuerepov tramrov Kipwvos ovk a&matéos 
TeNeuTHoaVTOS, GAN’ uas Ek OvyaTpos abrov yvnoelas Tatdas al’tw KaTadedol- 
nréoros, IG. II] 54 b 11 (363 B.C.) eivar 6é ’Aoruxplarny ’AOnvaior kali 


EKOVOUS QUTOU. 


14 So Leo, Ell. rapavépoccavroums. tap’ avépds cov thy Ouyarépa Crois., un- 
metrical. avitov Nic.: ‘“‘sans delai, sur-le-champ, sans autre forme de procés,”’ 
possible. oavtov rap’ avépos Head., tap’ avdpos ai’tns bvyatepa Harb., objec- 
tionable since the substantive, referring to a definite individual, unless it is predi- 
cate, must take the article. Thus 


E. 526 TOV xpnaTov avTns avdpa 

E. 105 els 6€ THY avTOU Piawv 

EK. 539 €Tl THY TpoliKa Kal THY OvyaTepa 
B. 524 TpOTET@s aTAYW THV JvyaTep’ 
He 35 éEMawv ayaywy Te THY adeAPny 
E. 499 TpOs TOV TATEpa 

E. 505 TNS YAMETNS YuVakos ETL GOV 


? 


J, 3. ~ é . ne 5 e 
ete. map avdpos aitov, Bod.-Maz.: ‘‘aux mains mémes de son mari,”’ possible. 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE (hs) 


On p. 33, Sachtschal cites among the examples of the omission of the 
article metri causa from substantives that are definite: 


544. 2 K. dTav Paywo’ ixOdv Exetvor, dia TWA 
a’T@y akpaciay Tovs TOdas Kal yaoTEépa 


oldovow. 


As the author points out, the article before yaorépa would bring together 
four long syllables. However, as Blaydes noted, the line is corrupt and 
unmetrical: for axpactavy (= ‘“‘mixture’’) has a long antepenult. The 
line cannot be considered as evidence in our discussion, therefore. But 
even if we assume that the article is omitted in this line, the reason for 
its omission is not metrical necessity but another principle which is fre- 
quently illustrated in prose as well as poetry. Jtthner-Gerth in their 
excellent discussion of the article apparently fail to recognize it, but Ful- 
ler, 62 f., recognizing the phenomenon in Aristophanes, hasclearly stated 
the principle thus: 


‘Si duo vel plura nomina coordinata aequam vim habent in sententia, A. articu- 


lus semper fere primo nomini additur, cum cetera eo careant. . . . Itacum 


adiectivis loco nominis usitatis . . . ,” ete. 


That it is a common practice in prose is shown by an indefinite number 
of examples. The following are taken at random from three different 
writers: Thucy. 1. 1 76» rodeuov tay HeNorovyynciwy kal “APnvaiwy, Pl. 
Rep. 2. 361¢ ray dwpeay re kal tiua@y evexa, 2. 364a 7 cwdpociyn Tre Kai 
duxavoovyn, Nen. Anab. 1. 5. 7 6 Kipos obv rots, mepi abrov apioros Kal 
eddaiuoveotatos. Instances are very common in Menander, especially 
with two adjectives that refer to the same thing or things: 


G. 56 oi wey oixerar Kal BapGBapoar” 

E. 86 Ta O€para Kal yrwpiopara'® 

K. 139 Tov BonJovvros dé Kal 
€TeELOVTOS 

EK. 120 cl TyALKOUTOL Kal ToLOUTOL TH EVEL 

8. 63 eis THV ayaT@oay a’To Kal BeBracuEernv 

8. 129 TOV €ls ATavYTas KOoMLOV Kal cwHpova 


16 Cf. Kaibel, GONachr. (1898), 158 n. 11. 
16 Not a case of hendiadys, for yrwpicuara includes d€para; cf. Leeu., Crois., 
Capps. 


sO STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 52 6 goBapos NuLY apTiws Kal ToNEULKOS 
and 563. 3 K., 664. 1, etc. 

But there are passages in which the two substantives refer to different 
things, though they are part of a larger, general class: 


129. 6 K. of 6€ THY Oodby akpav 
Kal THY XoAnVY dota T ABpwra Tots Oeots 
em evTes. 

532. 4 K. ovx e€eratew pev TA undev xpHoLma, 


Tis WV O TaTTOS HS yapelt, THON dE Tis, 

TOV 6€ TpOTOV av’TNS THS YamoupeErns. 
The omission of the article with 776y binds this in a common class with 
6 mamrmos, In contrast with that which follows. 


620. 1 K. evnfia por patverar, Pidovpern, 
TO voew pev boa bet, mH pudaTrTecMa O° a det. 
The article is used but once, since the two infinitive phrases form a 
single concept. 
Closely akin to this principle is another stated by Kihner-Gerth, II 


1. 604: 


“Der Artikel kann wegbleiben, wenn zwei oder mehrere beigeordnete Sub- 
stantive zu einer Gesammtheit verbunden werden, wie im Deutschen: Weib und 
Kind, Ross und Reiter u. dgl., wie iiberhaupt in Aufzihlungen.’’ 


Examples of this perhaps in the following instances of hendiadys: 


G. 65 amaddayels OuKeAAnsS Kal KAK@Y. 
255 Tavvux loos ovons Kal yuvarkay." 
E. 37 Euol 


Ti mavooTpodias kal kaxa@y;}8 

This ends the list of Menandrean passages which are cited or im- 
mediately suggested by Sachtschal’s thesis. There are other passages, 
however, which must be considered. 

Like eds, av@pwros, and terms of kinship, the words ¢vcts, Bios, yevos, 
Tporos seem to be used with considerable freedom, with or without the 
article, the choice depending both upon sense and upon metrical con- 
venience: e.g. 


17 Cf. Leeu., Capps. 
18 Cf. Leeu. 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE Sl 


Peete TOV ayvoovpevov T abeAPov TH Hioe 
and 602. 2 K. and 627 (subject of sentence), E. 583 (Euripidean), E. 105 
(reference very definite) ; but 
Pk. 44 eyo yap nyov ov dice 

TOLOUTOV OVTQ TOUTOY, 
and E. 126, 59. 1 K., 247. 1, 302. 3, 667. 2, 668. 1. With this word the 
preference in Menander is for the forms without the article. 


EK. 18 Kowov éoTe TH Biw 
TAVTW, 


(cf. Capps) and E. 127, 489, 499, G. 66, 177 K., 649, etc.; but 


300. K. TO avudepov Ti ToT EeoTlv avOpwrov Biw, 
and 663. 2 K., Pk. 373 (formal phrase, cf. Capps). Menander shows a 
decided preference for the use of the article. 


E. 120 of THALKOUTOL Kal TOLOUTOL TH YEVEL 


and Ki. 86; but 


Pke9 ToUToU veavioxov, yever Kopuw6iov 
OVTOS. 
Ciepsew ol oU6’ ei dexakis ToNTOs EoTL, LN YO, 


3 A er 
€MOS ULOS. 


E. 566 TOUTOV TLs AANOS, OVX O TPOTOS aTrOANVEL’ 
) X p 


and) He 553, 560,S. 132, 205, 532: 5 K., etc.; but 
GO223 KK n plots pia 


’ ~ 
TAVTWY, TOO OLKELOY GUVLOTHOL TpOTOS. 


and 472. 7 K. (predicate). 


Pk. 382 aBovrAov TavTEAws aVdpos TpPOTOY 

tporov (K6r.) or tporovs (Capps), followed by a full stop, must be 
construed as an accusative of specification. In this construction the 
omission of the article is apparently unparalleled, cf. robs tporovs Men. 
235. 4 K., 577, and often elsewhere in comedy, ef. Dunbar and Jacoks 
(also Capps). Since the first part of v. 383 is lacking in the ms. I query 
whether we should not read rpozov and construe it as an adverbial accu- 
sativewith a genitive to be restored: “‘like a ” ; though 
its position in relation to its genitive would be very queer. I doubt 


82 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


whether the ms. has been correctly read. It is clear that Menander 
usually employed the article with this word. 

The use in two passages of oixia without the article is worthy of com- 
ment: 


PK. 152 KaTaNéAo.TeV oiKiav 
ov pAvapw, TOV T’ EpacTHy. 


29 olov Kivados* OiKiay ToEt 


avaoTaropr. 


The omission of the article in these passages is surprising, as the reference 
in both cases seems at first sight to be very definite. Elsewhere in Me- 
nander, wherever the reference is thus definite, apart from formal prepo- 
sitional phrases (cf. p. 72) the article is used: ék 77s oixias S. 187, 
167, 402. 3 K.; rns oixias, Kl. 76, 403. 2 K.; ra oixiay 655. 2 K.; els rHv 
oixiay S. 304, 537. 5 K., 420. 3; ei thy oixiay Pk. 33. In E. 404, Ph. 17, 
the text is in bad condition, but it seems as if in both there might be 
further examples of the omission of the article. I am somewhat in 
doubt as to the proper explanation of these phenomena. Perhaps, oixia, 
a word much in use, acquired the meaning and the usage of the Latin 
domus, or English home. However, there does not seem sufficient evi- 
dence on which to base such a theory. Furthermore, J. II. 29 is 
exclamatory: “What a rogue! Breaks up home.” (cf. Capps, p. 97). 
As for Pk. 152, it is very possible that we have there a formal phrase with 
which may be compared the tragic ékXeirer Biov Pk. 373. 


EK. 171 avTos alonpous’ yAbuma Tavpos 7 TPAYos, 

The omission of the article before yAvuua is justified, not by metrical 
expediency (though its use would involve four long syllables in succes- 
sion), but by the highly elliptical and condensed character of Syriscus’ 
monologue. As he examines the ring he utters half to himself these com- 
ments, overheard by the eaves-dropping Onesimus. His sentences are 
rather exclamations than statements. 


Hy. ook vov érromadn 

Ta Tpaymat éotTl TA TEpL THY KEKTNMEVHV 

TaXéws* Eav yap evpefn TaTpos <> KOpN 

éAevIEpou UNTHP TE TOU VUY TaLoLoU 

yeyovut , 
This passage has been a veritable bone of contention. There have been 
three ways in which it has been considered: (a) Some commentators 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE 83 


(Ellis, Harbertun) have considered xopyn as subject, without noticing 
apparently anything unusual about the omission of the article. (b) 
Others (Croiset, L’ Arbitrage, ad |.; Capps) expressed their surprise at its 
omission, but, in accordance with their feeling for the sense of the pas- 
sage, have retained xopn as subject. (c) Still others (M(e)y(er), RCr. 
XLIV [1910], 10; apparently Croiset, J. Sav. [1907], 529 f.),!° influenced 
by grammatical rather than logical considerations, have parsed xépyn as 
predicate. Position (a) may be neglected; (b) is certainly the only pos- 
sible attitude, if one have consideration for the logical sequence of the 
thought. Since there is a radical change in theme, the subject of eipeby 
must be expressed, unless one suppose that the monologue-form allows 
great liberties in logical relations. To the casual listener 7 Kexrnuévn 
appears to be the subject of the sentence, as it is of the preceding. Only 
second thought shows that the person now being discussed is “‘the girl”’ 
and not “the mistress.’’ On the other hand, position (c) is unimpeach- 
able from a grammatical stand-point. The subject of the sentence must 
have the article, unless it is very indefinite. macatow byw éorw arrodnuav 
avnp, Arist. Lys. 101 (Capps), is not a convincing parallel, since the state- 
ment is general (cf. Blaydes) and avyp is a term of relationship. Here 
the subject is very definite (cf. tiv xopnyv (nthoowey KH. 320). So long 
as xopn is not modified by the article, it cannot be subject, it must be 
predicate. As for the subject, since it is not expressed, it must be under- 
stood. In short, since (b) is the true position from the logical point-of- 
view, and (c) from the grammatical point-of-view, neither can be the 
whole truth. To reconcile these two, I have suggested the restoration 
of the article with xopn.2° There is no metrical objection to the emenda- 
tion. According to White, ClPh. IV (1909), 152 f., this form of anapest 
(v~ v,—) is rare, but is found in Menander in the fifth foot in certain 
lines, H. 22, E. 69, and in broken lines, Pk. 33, 34, 282 (now certain), 
8. 89. The further qualification that this anapest must begin with a 
dissyllabic word in common use is fulfilled in our passage by zarpés. 


S. 289 Tw OYW MOvO?, 
el undevy GAN’, a’tov PoBnoar Bovdouar, 
The use of the article, though surprising, is closely paralleled in Thucy. 
1. 128. 3. (Ilavoavias) adixvetrac és ‘EXAjorovrov, rw wey hOywW Ext Tov 
“EXAnvixov roXEMOV, TH O€ Epyw Ta Tpds Bacilea Tpayuata Tpaccev. In 


‘9 Leeu. refuses to decide between the two interpretations. 
20 “ Perhaps correctly’’—Capps, crit. app. 


84 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


both cases, the article has a possessive force. Translate: ‘I want to 
frighten him by what I say, if it’s impossible by other means.” 

There is another fragment where the article might easily be inserted 
in our text to the improvement of the sense: 


546. 2. K. mTepas yap aves Bupa 
éNevPepa yuvackt vevoutot oixkias’ 


I have suggested ates for Kock’s ai\ews, inserting the article by 
crasis. According to Lucius, De crasi et aphaeresi, diss. Strassburg 
(1885), 28, » + av = av in the Attic dialect. The common example 
is abrh, e.g. in Arist. Nub. 1184. The article is needed in our passage, 
since the context demands a definite and not a general application of the 
meaning of the substantive. 

The general conclusion from all this evidence seems to me to be that 
Menander sparingly, probably never, directly contravened the usage of 
prose or colloquial language by omitting the article for the sake of his 
verse, but that he did not hesitate, when that usage gave him a choice, 
to take whichever form was more convenient metrically. 


CHAPTER IV. 


ASYNDETON. 


An ancient work on Style which has come down to us under the name 
of Demetrius Phalereus expressly recognized asyndeton as a character- 
istic of the style of Menander. Says the author (Demetrius on Style, trans. 
Roberts, Cambridge [1902], §§193, 194): 


“There is no doubt that the disjointed style lends itself better to debate. It 
likewise bears the name of histrionic, since a broken style stimulates acting. On 
the other hand, the best ‘literary’ style is that which is pleasant to read; and this 
is the style which is compacted and (as it were) consolidated by the conjunctions. 
This is the reason why, while Menander (whose style is for the most part broken) 
is popular with the actor, Philemon is the reader’s favorite. To show that the 
broken style suits the stage take the following line (Men. 763 K.) as an instance: 

“Thee I received, I bare, I nurse, O dear one.’ 
Thus disjointed the words will of themselves force a man to be dramatic even in 
his own despite. But if you employ conjunctions and say: ‘I received and bare 
and nurse’, you will at the same time make the line quite lifeless. And what is 
unemotional is essentially undramatic.”’ 


It is unfortunate that we have not sufficient remains of Philemon’s 
comedies to test the interesting comparison which is here made between 
his style and that of our author. Certain modern critics, notably Be- 
noit,! have thought that they could detect this difference in style even 
in the slight fragments of the two writers that were known prior to the 
discovery of the “‘new”’ Menander. A careful perusal of these fragments 


1 Hssai sur la Comédie de Ménandre (1854), 179 n. 1. He says in part: 


“Ce caractére du style de Philémon, signalé par Démétrius, est encore sensible dans ses fragments* 
sa phrase volontiers raisonneuse prend la forme serrée et symétrique de l’argumentation; la période 
se distribue avec une sorte de régularité pédantesque qui rappelle l’art des anciens sophistes. On dl- 
rait que c’est par cette roideur savante que le poéte tient surtout 4 distinguer son style de la langue 
ordinaire; tandis que lalangue de Ménandre . . . est libre comme la conversation, rompue, souple, 
non sans quelque négligence méme, assez semblable dans son allure au poéte luicméme, que Phédre 
nous montre laissant avec une élégante nonchalance flatter les longs plis de sa robe: 

Vestitu affluens 
Veniebat gressu delicato et languido.’’ 


See also Lubke, Menander und seine Kunst, progr. Berlin (1892), 25; Wilamo- 
witz, NJrklA. X XI (1908), 59 n. 3. 
85 


86 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


has made me feel that Benoit’s conclusions lack sufficient evidence. 
This impression has been confirmed by the crude test of a rapid count. 
The 224 fragments of Philemon, disregarding all that are less than two 
complete verses in length, make a total of 562 lines. In Menander, 
1-462 K., counted in the same way, there are 570 verses. A count of the 
number of conjunctions used and the instances of asyndeton, results 
thus: 


Philemon, Conjunctions, 278; Asyndetons, 163; Proportion, 58.6 per cent. 
Menander, 302 170 56.2 


I do not lay any emphasis on the accuracy of these figures—the count 
was hurriedly made—but they are sufficiently accurate to confirm my 
opinion that the evidence does not exist by which a test might be made 
of the style of the two poets. Pending the discovery of longer fragments 
of Philemon, any conclusions must be inevitably warped by the acci- 
dental character of the fragments preserved. 

However, the discovery of the new and longer fragments of Menan- 
der has at last given us continuous passages of such length that we can 
test to a certain degree the statements of ‘‘ Demetrius”’ concerning the 
style of Menander. A study of the new fragments will show that Me- 
nander used every form of asyndeton which is recognized by the gram- 
marians (cf. Kithner-Gerth, II 2. 339-347, with bibl.). By asyndeton they 
mean the rhetorical omission of conjunctions between coérdinated words, 
phrases, clauses, or sentences. All instances of this figure they divide 
into two classes, real and apparent.’ In the latter class the asyndeton is 
not real because the component parts of the discourse, though grammati- 
cally codrdinate, are logically subordinate, the one to the other; or 
secondly, because the connection is accomplished by some means other 
than a conjunction, such as a demonstrative pronoun or adverb. 

In discussing asyndeton, [ shall pass by all forms of broken dis- 
course, as, for example, questions and answers in dialogue, as well as 
rhetorical questions and answers in the mouth of a single speaker—ex- 
cept when a rhetorical question is so nearly equivalent to a direct 
statement or ironical criticism that it may be properly joined by 
connective with the following sentence. Furthermore, parenthetical 


? This distinction, though convenient, seems the result rather of the logical fancy 
of modern grammarians than of any intrinsic difference between the two classes 
of phenomena. 


) 


ASYNDETON 87 


phrases, which are essentially outside of the connected discourse, espe- 
cially those which have become quite formal, may be properly disre- 
garded in any discussion of asyndeton. Of such phrases there are 
many examples in our author:? eiwé wou E. 20, 443, S. 244, 332, Pk. 
197, G. 33; Aéy’ Pk. 210; croreis Pk. 302; dyoiv S. 38; cf. Pk. 280, 168 
K., BE. 223, 514 K., ete.; e& ich, HE. 158, Ph. 43; pavOavers S. 163; ot0’ 
axpiBas EK. 230, S. 255 (?), Pk. 245, cf. E. 521, S. 46; otoua: Pk. 113, J. 
II. 37; 6pas Pk. 142, 261, S. 250; euoi rioreve Pk. 218; txerebw oe E. 148, 
Zs olOn ke 260% Js. V7: 

Another class of passages to be disregarded in this present discussion 
are those clauses in which an adversative or inferential particle seems 
to take the place of a conjunction: For example, youv 8. 149, Ki. 62, 
67.4 K., 164. 2, 175. 2; 64 E. 208,4 121, S. 237, Pk. 144, 225; dnovbev 
25027 H. 7,30, EH. 251, 270; 2895 S26, 62; 3245 Pk. 305, 232 kK; 
évrav0a EK. 491; éxerra Pn. 4; pwevtor 8. 221; unv 8. 288; otv E. 96, 294; 
pev ovv K. 238, 386, Pk. 25, 185, 294, S. 191, 278, G. 29, 235. 6 K.; ovxotv 
EK. 77, 14435 rovyapow E. 575. 

In apparent asyndeton the grammarians note first of all cases of log- 
ical subordination in which the second clause represents the result of 
the first. Of this type in Menander: 


Pk. 248 éauTns éoT exelvn Kupla’ 
NouTov TO TeiMeW TH KaK@s dLaKELUEVY 


, ~ , a9) , 
EPWVTL T *EOTLV. 


Pk. 268 fewpynaov, Ilaraxe, mpos Oewy’ 
Maddov pw’ éXenoeLs. 


(Cf. Sudhaus, RhMus. LXIII [1908], 294 n. 1), and S. 207 a, Pk. 112. 
Frequently the second number is an imperative: 


3 References are made to the beginning of the clause or phrase from which the 
connective is omitted, not to the beginning of the entire passage which may be 
quoted. Small letters (a, b, c, etc.) indicate which instance (i.e., whether first, 
second, or third, etc.) in the line is cited. 

467 is not really the connective, but emphasizes the preceding pronoun. For 
the logical relations, ef. Arnim, Z6Gym. LVII (1907), 1075 f.: 


“Der Satz un we on . . . adavion ist weitere Ausfithrung und Begriindung von T@y mporepdv 
poe peTapéeder unvuuatwv. Der Satz Neyer yap . . . amodéoar gibt die Veranlassung, der Satz un 
we dn . . . adavion den Inhalt der Befiirehtungen, die ihn seine Denunziation bereuen lassen.”’ 


5 With these words Davus interrupts his monologue to question Smicrines, to 
whom these words are addressed, as the answer shows; cf. Croiset. Such a shift 
jn the person addressed would in itself justify the asyndeton, cf. p. 97. 


8S STUDIES IN MENANDER 


E. 191 Xapeotparov 


ei’ oikeTns’ owe ToVTOY aadadas 
h “pol dos, 
S. 158 GAN’ ExeLs 


TO Taolov, THY ypavyv' atopfeipov Taxv. 
Suose ovdev KaKOV 
éoTi cor’ Pappe, 
And E. 356, S. 167, Pk. 50, 200, 275, G. 77, 84. Cf. also p- 987. 


The first member may express acquiescence, the second, a com- 
mand, the logical result of that acquiescence: 


es BovXNouat * Kpwwpedba.® 
Pk. 418 OpOas yap Nevers O et ToELV’ 
6 payetpos Evdov éaTi* THYV bv OvETO. 
Thv bv Overw is the logical result of v. 417, 6 . . . . éori being 
parenthetical. ’ 


Cf. also Pk. 404. 


Closely allied to this is asyndeton in a clause which serves as the sum- 
mation or conclusion of a preceding discourse: 


E. 75 eipnka Tov y’ Euov oyor. 
(See Capps.) Cf. E. 135. 


E. 126 yauav aded@ny Tis dla yvwpiowara 
eTETXE, MNTEP EVTUXY EppvoaTo, 
éswo’ adedpov. ovr’ eriohadny dioer 
Tov Blov aTavTwy TH Tpovola det TATED 


TNPELY, 


S. 196 HKovoa KavTOS THY YUVaLKwY OTL TPEPELS 

avedouern Taroaproy’ EuBpovTnala. 
and E. 478. Especially frequent in the second or concluding member 
is a demonstrative which makes still clearer the summation: 


E. 34 avedounv, amndOov oikad’ ait’ exwr, 
Tpepe Euedov* TavT €d0EE wou TOTE. 


6 T have followed Korte in the distribution of the réles in the opening lines of 
the Epitrepontes. For discussion of other possibilities see besides the several 
editions, Mazon, RPhil. XXXII (1908), 68, and M(e)y(er), RCr. XLIV (1910), 
10 f. 


ASYNDETON 89 


E. 39 TOLOUTOGL TLS HV. 


Belo TAVTA TA TUVEKKELMEV A 
TOU Ta.olov 'oTl* TOUTO YLYVwMoKW. 
And E. 108, 235, 289, 332, 527, 549, S. 219, 231, 250, 254, 324, Pk. 75, 
154, 171; 213, 243, 263, 341, 342, G. 24, 75, 88, Ph. 45, J. II. 1, 65.3 K., 
166.3, 292. 7. 
Sometimes the relation which the demonstrative expresses is not 
result but mere sequence: 


Hes Touunv yap nv TiBeos oikav evOadt 
IIreX€acr, yeyovws oikérns véos wy ToOTE. 


5 Ua U ' = , 
€yeveTo TOUTW dldvu“Aa TaUTAa TaLoia. 


od \ r = , ! r ~ Sho as ee. 
E. 71 TO Téepas’ O€OWKA GOL TL TOV Eu@V ExwY 
= 5) ~ » 
el TOUT apeoToV EaTi Gol, Kal VUV EXE, 


? y)} ’ ep ~ 5) 5) L r 
el 6 OUK apéoKker pweTavoets 6, aTOd0s TAaAW. 


S. 198 (a relative) ovK wpylfeTo 
eVOis, duaditay 6’, apTiws* ds kal dpacas 
els TOUS Yamous mor TaVOoV EUTpETN ToELV 
meTakd p Womep Eumarys eTeraoTETwY 
EEwHev EKKEKAELKE. 


De aey TO TEAM’ EldEs Taplova’; EvTAavOa GE 
\ , 1 Ge oY ? ~ 
THv viKTa BamTifwv OAnY aTOKTEVO. 


And E. 84, 86,7 142. 3 K. 


There may also be apparent asyndeton when the second member gives 
the reason for the statement in the first. In such clauses yap or apa are 
the normal connectives if any are expressed. 


’ a ri} A > = \ <A 
EK. 283 ovK ay duvalunv Tov adtKovYTAa Tply Gapas 
! b) IOL % =~ Ze ! 
Tis €oTw eEldeévar’ PoBovuar TOUT EYw, 
MaTny TL unviey pos Exeivas as EYw. 


E. 485 aToh\wha* THY Oipay wéemAnXEV EEL. 
S. 124 alTyn yap tot aitia Tov yeyovoTos. 


Katé\aPev at’rov mov wefvovta bndadn. 


7 Hitrem, BphW. XXVIII (1908), 415, finds the connection in Ta d€paca as direct 
continuation and explanation of él rovrov (sc. Koouov) after the parenthesis. I 
find it rather in ovros. 


90 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 209 Meéya Ti gor KaKoy 
dwow* aol ToOUTWY yeyovas aiTWwTarn. 


H. 185.4. atoopayelnv mpoTepov av dnrovley 7 

TOUTW TL KaMuPeimny. Apape, duKagouar 

amac. kad’ éva* ravdiov ‘oriv, obK eua. 
Of these three clauses, the second and the third give the grounds for the 
affirmation in the first. 
Other examples: E. 136, 166, 215, 459 a, b, 590 (?), S. 41 b, 335, 341, 
Pk. 147, 182, 256, 429, G. 19, 29, Ki. 44, 46, 48, 54, 67. 2 K. (?) (note the 
rapidity of narration), 74. 5, 229. 2. 
Frequently the explanatory clause gives an illustration of the statement 
in the preceding: 


EK. 109 Teééace Tpaywoods, 06’ OTL, 
Kal TaUTa KaTéxels TavTa. Nnd€a Tiva 
IleXiav 7’ éxeivou ; evpe tpecBiTns avnp 
aimoXos, 


HK. 124 ov 67 Kada@s Exel TO WEY Gap ExTpEpeLy 
Ee TOUTO, THY d€ TOVOE TNS TwTNHpias 
eATida NaBovtTa Aaov adavioa, TaTep. 
yauav adedgony Tis dtd yvwpliouata 
ETETXE, KTA. 


Cf. Hense, BpbhW. XXIX (1909), 1501. 


E. 547 cadas dbakw o* elciy ai Tava TONeELs, 
Omoov eimeiv, xtAvac’ 
So also 8. 177, 256, 258, 223 K. passim, 302. 4, 322. 7, 9, 534. 3. 
The explanation may be in the form of a more or less general aphorism: 


Pk. 66 dvoTUXNS 
TLS OTPATLWTHV EXaBEV AVdpa* Tapavomor 


amavres, ovdev TioTov. 


r ~ “ ’ 
Pk. 429 Tavu gov diA® TO auvdtaddayxOnoouat.””’ 
br evTUXNKas, TOTE d€XETAaL THY SiKny 
U 2 of v r 
TeKUNpLoy TOUT eaTL “EAXAnVOs TpOTOUV. 


Also E. 15, 180, 181, 130. 3 K., 202. 3, 394, and often in CAF. 


A demonstrative in the first member may point forward to the reasons 
to be advanced in the second: 


ASYNDETON 91 


E. 229 TOLOUTOVL 
éoTw TO TpayKe, avOpwre’ Tov pev deaTOTOU 
tor’ oid” H) Ba t \ xX , A 
, 010 axpiBas, odtocl Xapuciov 
OKV@ 6€ detEat’ 
12d, alah an’ ederkev ev TL TOLOvVO’, ws mpoonMoy éorrepas, 
Tpocbpamovt’ ovK epuyer, 


And E. 80a, 103, 8. 324, J. Il. 6, 165. 5 K., 367. 


Sometimes a noun serves the same function: 


S. 298 avontov TE Kal 
evKaTapporvntov Eepyor elu’ eipyaopuevos. 
ovdey AdLKwY EdELTa Kal TOV deoTOTHY 
épvuyov. 

And E. 296 and 


Peoe74 kal TO Kepadarov ovderw oyifouat, 
Tov decToTny,® av €& aypov PatTov madw 
€hOn, Tapaxny olay Tonoe Tapadavels. 
with which compare 531. 10 K. 
Sometimes a demonstrative in the second, the explanatory member, 
takes up some word, or phrase, or even the entire thought of the pre- 
ceding: 


EK. 201 TavTwy 6 amednoavd’, ws eouxev, det dikas 
peNeTav’ Ova TOUTOV TaVYTa VUVi ow feETaL. 
So also 88.2 K., 223. 5, 223. 8, 449, 690. 


Sometimes the first member is a question to which no answer is ex- 
pected, but which is followed by an explanation of the motive in asking 
the question: 


E. 183 Tpoomaicers €Mol; 

Tov deororou aTi, 
o4i K. a OdvoTUXNs, 

Ti ov Kabeiders; oU pm’ aToKValets TEpLTaTar. 
K. 484, Pk. 156, 198, 247, S. 223, 236, 340, G. 48, 100 K. 


A special form of question with demonstrative occurs in the Samia: 


8 The scholiast ad Arist. Pl. 35 interprets tov deow6Tnv as Tepl TOU deaTOTOU 
(ef. Kretschmar, 106, Capps). It is of course a simple case of prolepsis. 


92 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


S. 38 Tl TOUT’; EV TOLS Yapots 
TOls TOU TaTpOs TOV wLKpOY Ov HEpamreEveETeE; 


S. 146 “HpaxXes, Ti TovTO, Tat; 
Matvouevos elodedpaunkey elow TLs YEpwr. 


S. 190 adr’, ‘Hpaxders, Ti TovTo; tpdabe THY Bupav 
éoTnxe Xpvais nde KAaova’; 


And see 8. 148. 


In still other cases the explanation is given in the second member 
by means of a more or less rhetorical question: 


E. 285 poBovmat Tout’ eyo, 
MaTny TL unviey pos Exeivas as EY. 
Tis oidev, ei Kal TOUTOV KT. 


and E. 523, 529, 575, G. 87. 


In many cases the verb of the first member is an imperative of en- 
treaty, exhortation, or command: 


EB. 15 wn KaTagpovnons, mpos Bewy. ev avi det 


KaLp® TO OlKaLOV ETLKpaTELY ATAYTAXOD. 


S. 230 pevye, Xpvail, KpeitTwy EoTi pov. 
And E. 103, 153,° 228, 296, S. 166, 244, 332, Pk. 220, 275, G. 40; 124 K. 


In E. 18, the second clause is inserted as a parenthesis in the first. 


Again, the first member may be exclamatory in character: 


© ») ' 
EK. 143 den Y’ 1 Kplots, 
\ \ , eee) v bf t 
yn Tov Aia Tov owrnp* arayO evpwv tym 
amTavrTa Tepieotacu 6 6 ovxX elpwy ayer. 


E. 340 TOTAOTLKOY TO YUVaLOY’ ws HaOnd’ ort 
KaTa TOV Epwr ovK eat’ EXevOEpias TUXELY, 
a&ddws 6’ adler, THY érTEepav mopeverat 
O00”. 


® The logical relation between the two clauses is plain, though the second may 
not have been heard by the departing Smicrines. 


ASYNDETON 93 


And perhaps 8. 100 and 

S. 241 ‘ ap’ 6 oOs me Tats 
evrOpioxev; (Dem.) ddvapeis. AnWerar wev THY KOpNY, 
éore 6° ov TowvTor. 


with which compare E. 243. 

In this same general class are to be grouped three passages in which, 
as before, the second clause gives the reason for the first; but they are 
so much alike that they are best listed separately: 


Hs Kaxov TL, Aaé, mou doxets memonKevat 
Tapmeyeles, €iTa TpoTdoKwY aywviay 
MUA@Va GaUTwW Kal Tédas. eEVdnNAOS El. 


S. 238 aduxeis, Anuéa, we, Ondos ei, 
Kal TO Tpayua Trav ovvoicba. 


dndos et, though parenthetic, is explanatory. 


Pk. 108 TO TOLOUTL MEpOS 
obk axplBas det Ppacar cour" Kouyos el. 


The grammarians distinguish from the last mentioned another gen- 
eral class in which the second unit of the discourse elaborates in dif- 
ferent words the thought of that which precedes. I have found it diffi- 
cult to find any certain instance of such a differentiation. Perhaps, 
however, the following passages might be included in such a category: 


Sb. ool evTUXELS* OVdEY KAKOV 
€OTL GOL’ 

Pk. 67 TApavomor 
amavrTes, ovdevV TLOTOV. 

A very natural form of apparent asyndeton, especially in the lively dia- 
logue of comedy, involves the repetition by one speaker of the words of 
the other, either verbatim or in paraphrase. These may be the words 
which have just been uttered: 


E. 198 aipiov 6€. (Syr.) Karapevra, 
aiipiov 6Tw Bovdr€Ec0’ ExitpeTey evi hOYH 
ETOLMOS. 

Pk. 243 ameAndvbev 6° ob KaTa TpOTOY GOV XpwpmEVOU 


attn. (Pol.) ri dns; ob Kata Tpdrov; 


So E. 76, 8. 155, 331, Pk. 239. 


94 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


EK. 524 vovlernoes Kal ov Me; 

TpoTEeT@s aTayw THY OuyateEp’, Lepoovde ypai; 
It is clear that Smicrines is repeating in anger the suggestions which 
Sophrone has made to him, though the audience has never heard her 
words.!° 

The reference may be as obvious, though made to words spoken some 
time previously: E. 100 Syriscus echoes xowos ‘Epuns of Davus, v. 67; 
E. 453, Habrotonon says Oem tis buas nXenoe IN Obvious answer to the 
despairing query of Sophrona, v. 484, ris adv Oe@y Tadawwar edAenoeE Me; 
(cf. Leo, Herm. XLIII [1908], 135 n. 1; Capps) and Moschion, Pk. 368, 
Ouw@pokey TH unTpl, echoes the words of Glycera, 361, exeiva 6’ abtn wy ppa- 
ce oumpoxa, though not in answer to her but in an ‘‘aside.” See also 
E. 113 and E. 46: E. 135 and E. 75 (ef. Hense, BpbhW. XXIX [1909], 
1502). Lastly, the speaker may repeat his own words, though after a 
considerable interval, as E. 182 (cf. E. 177); 8.172, a paraphrase of 
words uttered six lines previously; and 8. 337, an echo of 8. 319. E. 77, 
Syriscus begins a summary of Davus’ speech, which has just been fin- 
ished. 

The repetition of the first or last words of a sentence under the rhe- 
torical figure anaphora gives us another form of apparent asyndeton, of 
which Menander is fond, especially in excited discourse. Its use In ques- 
tions I reserve for later discussion, but many other examples of it may 
be found: 


E. 189 Xapiciov ’otiv ovtoct* TovTov Torte 
' 3 ! ’ e ” 
peiwy atwreo , ws pn. 


\ ~ ’ ’ = L 
E. 46 TO Tpayy a’Tw EYw, 
ws Evpov, ws averd’ pny. 


with which compare E. 113. 


Kl. 56 ff. boas avacTarous 
, er meng! 9 , t 
TONELS EOPAKAS, TOUT GTOAWAEKEV MOVOY 
TavTas, 6 viv dia ToUTov eEeUpNK’ EVO. 
dg0L TUpavvor TwTOO’, doTLS TYEMwV 
Meyas, KTX. 


S. 110 @ moNucua Kexporias xOoves, 


ss: A ’ U ry 
® Tavaos aidyp, w 


10 Cf. Leo, GdNachr. (1907), 325; Bodin, RPh. XXXII (1908), 76; Bod.-Maz.; 
Croiset; Capps. 


Py 
So) 
~t 


ASYNDETON 


So also KH. 167 ff., where Syriscus goes over the yrywpicuara, one by one, 
K. 457 ff., where Onesimus declares that his master is mad (ef. p. 19, 
n. 20); 8. 94f., in a repeated formula of swearing; S. 319 ff., in Mos- 
chion’s troubled monologue. See also 859 K. Pk. 256, Parmenon’s 
passionate utterance, the poet joins chiastie order of words with anaphora: 


TAvuképa pe KaTtadedouTe, KaTadéAoUTE pe 
I'Dukepa. 


In other passages the rhetorical force of the figure seems to be dominant: 


E. 554 ff. ovTOS Evdoy ETEpoY MeV KaKas 
eTeTpIpeV, GV aiTw KaKws xpnond’ Exwy, 
a DE CSE, ae > Tei ecos t 
eTepov 6 Eowoev. odTOds eof’ Huy Heds, 
« b] ” ~ ~ ~ ~ 
67 altos Kal Tov Kada@s Kal TOU KaKas 
TPATTEL EKAOTW* TOUTOV tNacKoU. 


As well as E. 566, 154. 2 K.,'281. 9, 377. 


Apparent asyndeton is to be expected also wherever strong opposites 
are in immediate contrast: 


DOr ove oTpEedhomevous AVwW KAT. 
pepou. 


One may expect to find asyndeton whenever the thought is transferred 
to a new field. As in prose, so in the verse of Menander, the particle yéy 
is often used to introduce such transitions of thought: 


E. 480 Aovdopeir’ Eppwmevws 
aitw Brera 8 tdaiyov ApeOropevos. 
Téeppik’ eyw Mev, 


€ ) e » > 
Pk. 39 Ta NoiTa 6 av’Tos evporT’ av TLS Ed" 

e » ) « ~ 

. O Mev WNET Ela OTL KATA GXOANY KpLWEL 


avtny TL Bovred’, 
Asmalsono. On Pk elas des Lelio) 


Similarly, important points in a long argument may be added without 
the use of a connective. E.70 and Ph. 39 the concluding argument is 
introduced by the phrase 76 vépas.!' But such important transitions 
may occur without any indication in the language itself: 


The conjunction with this phrase is used elsewhere: 76 6€ wépas E. 470, 76 
mépas 6€ TavTwy KH. 316; cf. rd mépas 6’ axove wou G. 49, but 7d répas cor AEYw 
Hegessip. 1. 10 K. (Kretschmar, 42). So possibly 
Picerltes Kal TO KePadatov’ oldérw oyifoua. 


96 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


E. 82 adnbn yap eye. 
Touny Tis e&nyyerdE por, Tpds Ov ovTOGL 
eANaANGE, THY TOUTW TUVEPYwY, Gua TVA 
KOOMOV ouveupety avTov'!? 


Asyndeton in parentheses and in interrupted speech is, of course, only 
apparent: 


FE. 532 oUTW Ti Mor 
ayalov yevo.to, Lwhpovn, yap, oikade 
amuwyv ———— To TéAp’ e€ides Taptova’ ; 

E. 580 TavTnv NaBav 

Xopav atooracbetoay ———— aio@ave ye; 

Se Lt @ Tavads aidnp, «@ ———— Ti Anpea Boas: 


And H. 39, E. 490, 8S. 91, Pk. 265. So also Davus’ embarassed words 
to Moschion, 


Pk 1454. TO detva, Mooxiwy, éya Tore ———— 


MuKpov ETL petvor. 


For the realistic effect of the asyndeton, cf. Kérte, BSG. LX (1908), 
102. 

Asyndeton, on the resumption of a narrative after an interruption, is - 
a natural construction: 


27 6 TAY TpoBaTiwy EvOad’ EmtpmedovpeEvos 
vuvi map’ qutv; (Dav.) obros. av dn yepwr 
0 TiPeos, 6 maTnp, eis Tpodnv ye Nay Gaver 
TOUTOLS Tapa TOvMOV deoTOTCU VAY, 


and E. 33. 
So very possibly 
Pk. 338 dv Kal TOT €idov. ov Tap’ avTov ovTool 


Tpayos Tis, } Bovs, 7 Tovwvri Mnplov 
EOTNKED 5 


” Hense, BpbhW. XXIX (1909), 1501 upholds the ms. with asyndeton against 
touuny 6€ Crois., Rob. For the objection to the anapest (v,~,—-+) in the sec- 
ond foot, cf. White, ClPh. IV (1909), 157. E. 70, Ph. 39, E. 82 are also examples 
of asyndeton in lively narrative, cf. p. 100. 


ASYNDETON 97 


Similarly a speaker may interrupt his own monologue with words 
addressed to some other person or persons. The best example of this 
is the monologue of Doris, Pk. 64 ff., which is interspersed with repeated 
calls to the slaves who are tending the door at which she is knocking. 
With it may be compared the somewhat similar scene, E. 535 ff., where 
Smicrines raps at the door of Charisius’ house. Other examples of inter- 
rupted monologue are found in EK. 85, 164, 165, 168, 182 (cf. n. 13), 
187, G. 39. 8S. 134, the change is only apparent as the person addressed 
in the second member is the speaker himself. 

292 K. oroven’ dldov ol) ordayxv’ akoAovOav* rot BETES; 
amovon’ pep’, @ Tat Lwoia’ orovdn’ Kaas. 
The speaker interrupts the ritualistic procedure to scold the slave. 


At other times the speech is interrupted because the person addressed 
has left the stage and is out of hearing: 





S. 143 tat, Iappéevwy avOpwmros aTodeébpake pe 


Pk. 406 (Pol.) ad 6 bet roeiv 
axovoov. (Hxit Doris) eicedpdv6’* olor. 


In other cases, the person addressed leaves the stage as directed by the 
speaker, who then continues in a monologue: 


8. 319 (Mos.) ri obv 

meddets; (Hart Par.) mpdceoe viv 6 rarnp. 
8.337 (Mos.) omeioov, cEayyedd€ poi tr. (Haxit Par.) viv rpdcecr. 
Or an actor may enter, fail to notice another on the stage, begin a 


soliloquy, and then, suddenly noticing the presence of the other, turn and 
address him. 


So 8. 192 aN’ ‘Hpakdes, Ti TovTo; mpdabe THY Bupav 
éatnke Xpvals nde KAaova’; ov ev ovY 
adn. Ti mote TO yeyovos; (Chry.) éxBéeBXnxe pe 
6 pidos 6 xpynoTos gov. Ti yap aAN’; 


138 Pk. 68, 70 with 231, E. 147, 182 are cited by Sudhaus, RhMus. LXIV (1909), 
421 and n. 3, to prove his theory that the double-point indicates not merely a 
change of speaker, but a change of person addressed. But probably the double- 
point, when not indicating an actual change of speaker, is either a strong mark of 
punctuation, or, in monologues, an indication of the quoted words of an assumed 
interlocutor. All will agree that it is often carelessly placed in our mss. As 
to assignment of Pk. 68 c to Sosias, cf. Gerhard, Phil. LXIX (1910), 13 n. 10; 
Capps, crit. app. 


98 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


In many cases, however, there are no exits or entrances, but the 
speaker turns rapidly from one person to another: 


> , 66 ' i t , ~-¢oL , 
S.106 (to Par.) Ti davOavew’’; (servis) iuavra, maidés, Tis 66TH 


éml ToUTOVi mor TOV aceBN. 


S.113  (ipsi) ov6€ yap aécxet Mocyxiwy oe. (spectatoribus) mapaBoros 
6 Noyos lows Eor’, avdpes, GAN’ aANOLVOs. 


Thus in 8. 237 Demeas turns from a soliloquy to revile Niceratus. In 
EK. 90 Syriscus first addresses Davus and then continues his pleading 
with Smicrines. In 8. 156 f., Demeas first takes up Glycera’s words, 
then makes a little side remark to himself, and then turns again to Gly- 
cera with a threat. 8.88, Parmenon, after giving certain directions to 
Chrysis, then addresses his master.” E. 213 and Pk. 61 are interesting 
as examples of an actor’s addressing remarks on leaving the house to 
persons inside and then following with a monologue. With these passages 
Moschion’s entrance, Pk. 276 f., is to be compared: he speaks to per- 
sons who are entering the other house on the scene, as he comes out of 
his own. In such passages as these, it is common enough for the second 
member to be an imperative of appeal, entreaty, or command. To the 
examples already given may be added: 


S. 169 (1pst) mpootteov. 
(to Dem.) Bédr108’, 86a ——— 


S. 110 (to Par.) ot ob, rot, waoreyia; 
(servis) AaB’ abrév. 


EK. 22 (to both)  axobvcouac’ Ti yap 
To kwdvov; (to Darus) ov mpotepos, 6 cwwmav, eye. 


And E. 147 (ef. n. 13; also Croiset, Capps), 8. 148, 230, Pk. 442. 


But any imperative, even though addressed to the same person as the 
previous discourse, is an interruption of the continuity, and may prop- 
erly be appended without a conjunction: 


S. 112 TL Boas, avonre; KATEXE TAUTOY. 


14 According to Sudhaus (cf. n. 13), Pk. 231 is another example: he gives (with 
Rob.) avepxouar ff. to Sosias; the prior portion as an address to Polemon, the 
latter as his parting insult to Habrotonon, but ef. Capps. 

15 Cf. Capps. However, Sudhaus following Lef., Wil., assigns 8S. 83-88 to De- 
meas; the first part spoken to himself, the second to Chrysis. 


ASYNDETON 99 


E. 135 elpnka. Kptvov 6 TL OiKavoy vevoutkas. 


And E. 445, S. 247, Pk. 369. 
A second imperative may be added without a conjunction, though the 
first may have been joined by such means to the previous discourse: 


S. 141 daxwv 6° avacxou, Kaptepnooy eivyevas. 
And E. 15, Pk. 260. 
Usually, however, neither imperative has a conjunction: 


S. 135 Anpéa, vuv avdpa xpn 
eivai o* émtNabov Tov TO90v, Tétave’ Epav. 
And S:'96, 112; 227.1 


Akin to entreaties to mortals are prayers to the gods. In the words 
of Gildersleeve, ad Pind. Ol. 9.86, “‘prayer is always in order, and 
many asyndeta fall under this head:’’ 


E. 486 TH Ovpay memAnXEY EELWY. 
Zev o@rep, €imEep EoTL OuVAaTOV, TOWLE LE. 


Curses also interrupt the discourse: 


E. 528 ovk O€vAaBnoar KpEtTTOV; oiuwser wakpa, 
av €re Nadgs TL. 


ASralso J. LE 7, 24: 


And, likewise, exclamations in general: 


S. 207 dukaiws amofavoiw’ av. ‘Hpaxders, 
nALKOV KEKpaye’ 


And E. 346, 8. 208, Pk. 62 f., 67, 269, 375, 377. G. 43.17 In all such in- 
terruptions of the discourse asyndeton is a figure that effectively repro- 
duces the tone and manner of daily speech and helps to enliven the dra- 
matic action. 

There are other cases of asyndeton which are doubtless to be attributed 
in a similar way to a change in the theme of discourse, where, however, 


16 Also S. 97, according to Kérte’s text; but Korte without reason neglects the 
ms., which plainly indicates a change of speaker after devp’ (Hense, BpbhW. XXTX 
[1909], 366). éo@ Capps for Aeye Korte gives the sense. §S. 313, Jensen reads in 
ms. ageis for ages (Lef., Kérte). For other imperatives, ef. p. 87 f. 

17 Also E. 543 according to Ko6rte’s text, where, however, the assignment of 
roles is uncertain. I prefer with Leeu., Capps, to continue Onesimus into 543, 
leaving to Smicrines only 543 b. 


100 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


there is no external indication of such transition, not even the particle 
nev. A very good example is furnished by the cook’s monologue, 


S. 149 ff. KeKpaye Youv Tampeyeles. aorTEloy Tavu 
el Tas NoTadas Ev TH METw MOL KELMEVaS 
doTpaka Toinoar TAavO’ Guora. THY Ovpav 
mwemAnxev. €&wHANS aTOdoL0, LappErwr, 
KOMiogas Me O€UpO. pLKpOV UTaTOOTHGOMAL. 


Here there are at least four changes of theme, with scarcely any logical 
relation between the several units of the discourse. See also E. 25, 349, 
Pk. 266, 282. As we should expect, these examples are either from 
soliloquy or from rapid narrative. 

To this general class of apparent asyndeton, due to rapid change of 
thought, belongs asyndeton in questions and answers in which a finite 
verb of saying introduces the answer: 


E. 300 KaTLowy bm’ Exovoay avaKpivet TObEv 
ei\nda’ dhow ““TavporoNlo.s, KTd. 
Or the verb of speaking comes at the close of the question: 


a ce = ~ eels, 
Bi. 553 ‘ovUK apa PpovTifovow nua ot Beoi;”’ 
onoers. ———— €kaoTwW TOV TpOTOV cUYNPLOCTAaV 
Ppovpapxov* 


Real asyndeton is defined as that form of asyndeton in which the two 
members of the discourse are logically as well as grammatically co6r- 
dinate, and in which no demonstrative pronoun or other device takes the 
place of the omitted conjunction. Of this, as of the apparent asyndeton, 
there are many examples in Menander. 

Real asyndeton may occur, in the first place, in lively narrations (Capps 
ad E. 33) or descriptions, the effect being either emotional or rhetorical 


E. 33 AEYo. 
avedounv, amndOov oixad’ ait’ Exwr, 
Tpepery Eueddov.}® 


18 The contrast between the style of Syriscus and that of Davus has been noted 
by the commentators, esp. Wilamowitz, NJrklA. XXI (1908), 51, and Hense, 
BphW. XXIX (1909), 1501 f. Wilamowitz says of Davus’ words: 


“Die Asyndeta seiner Erzihlung, die Hinfiihrung direkter Reden geben im Verse die wahre Sprache 
des Schiafers so wunderbar, dass die Ethopéie der Redne: davor verblasst.”’ 


ASYNDETON 101 


E. 39 TOLOUTOGL Tis HY. ETOlmatvoy Taduy 
éwhev. dOev odTos. 


Cf. Hense, BpbhW. X XIX (1909), 1501. 


E. 438 mpoTepoy b€ wor auvnOns eyeyover. 
éXadouyev addAnAoLs. oKVOpwrov oYTA LE 
idcov" “ri abvvous,”’ dnat, ““Aaos,” “Ti yap,” eye, 
“Teplepyos ei.” 
(Gf. Hense, 2bid.) And H. 20, EH. 47-52, 53-57, 57-61, 187, 267, 287, 
ATS 948. 5219, 29, 15d." 16a, 198) 20215, 2084, 219, 319=322 328. 


ee 


Pk. 35 f., 54, 72-74, 104, 123 £., 273, G: 76, J. IN 10, J. 141-45, Ki. 63. 


Sometimes, even when the discourse is not otherwise especially lively, 
a series of details are thrown together as illustrations of the general prin- 
ciple or act involved. The conclusion of such a series may be formed by 
a single word, the equivalent of the English and so forth: 


G. 36 pepe yap mvpplivny, xitrov] addr, 
avén Tocavta.!* 


or by a phrase descriptive of the entire series: 


S. 186 f. aiwa yap €xe, xoAnY ikaynv, dora KaNa, 
omA\nva pmeyav, wy xpeta ‘oti Tots ’Odvurios. 


S. 279 f. Kal [7 Tocav’T AY EuTOdwY, dpKos, 71OOos 
ay] nV EM » OPKOS, ) 
xXpovos, cuvnOer’, ois EdovAOmnY EYa. 


But even if such a concluding phrase be omitted, it is frequently latent 
in the speaker’s mind. 


G. 60 ff. Topicas dapmaka 
nrehev, e&eTpiPev, aTevicev, payew 
Tpocepepe, TapEeuvsetto, Tavu dalAws Exe 
ddEavt’ aveotno’ avrov émipedovperos. 


These are only some of the ways in which the boy cared for Eleaenetus, 


19 The edd. have thought in &v@n rooavra to find evidence that a line has been 
lost, ef G.-H., Kaibel, Leeu.; but cf. Blass, Kretschmar. Kretschmar suggests 
that these words were accompanied by a gesture towards the pile which is to be 
carried in by the other slave. This theory is by no means impossible, and if ac- 
cepted, of course destroys the appropriateness of the passage as evidence of the 
phenomenon which I have under immediate discussion. tooavra would then refer 
to something before the eyes of audience rather than to something which has just 
been described. 


102 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


S. 12 at 6° €Bowy aya’ 


by ’ a » ’ > P 
adeup’, tdwp, EXavoyv amddos, avOpakas.”’ 


Our impression is that Demeas has mentioned only a few of the things 
for which the women were shouting, but that they are typical of the 
thousand and one things they required and demanded in preparing for 
the marriage feast.?° 
And H. 107,125 f.. (cf., Hense:1.c.),.344. S.7, 2606... Pie 234i 55 fi. 
and many examples in CAF, as 10, 24, 62, 141, 223, 248, 295, 301, 319, 
331, 462, 481, 532. 12, 534. 12, 537, 615, 829, 834. 

Sometimes in the details which are offered, either in lively narrative 


or description, or in what I may call an and-so-forth series, one fancies 
one sees a certain climactic order: 


E. 480 Teppik’ €y@ pev, avos elue TH See’ 

E. 485 olxouat, 
amoAw\a. 

s. 133 Xapatimn 6 avOpwros, depos 


BK. 472, 489, 8. 203, 205, 337. 


Another form of real asyndeton recognized by the grammarians is 
that which results from contrast. This is frequent in Menander: 


E. 186 Tadlov ’oTlv, ovK eua. 

E. 566 TOUTOV TLs GAXOsS, OVX 5 TpOTOS, aToANUEL. 
Pk. 340 EXagos, vidtat’, €oTiv. ov TPAaYos. 
Pk 07 TQV ONWY KATAGKOTOS 


= = =e 5) , ; 
TPAYMATWY YEVOU, TL TOLEL, TOU OTLY ) MATNP, EME 
els TO Tpocdokay ExovaL T@S* TO TOLOUTL MEpPOS 


ovx akpib@s det dpacat cou’ 


te ea TOUTO yap 
ioxupov oleTai TL TpOs TO TpAyy ExELY. 


OUK €oTL OLKQaLOY* 


20 This is the asyndeton enwmerativum. Cicero, Or. Part. 15. 53, (ef. Nagles- 
bach, Lat. Stylistik, 582) described its effect thus: “‘soluta quae dicuntur sine 
conjunctione ut plura videantur.”’ 


ASYNDETON 103 


S. 302 ff. 0 Tpodimos eEnuapTer eis ENeVHEpay 
Kopnv’ ad.ixet Sntrovdev ovdev Hapyeévwr. 
exinoev aitn’ Hapyevwy ovk alrios. 
TO TaLoapiov eiondOey eis THY Oiklav 
THY NMETEpAY’ HvEyK’ ExELVOS, OUK EYO. 
And E. 23, 80, 88, 102, 433, 528, S. 125 (?), 211,21 Pk. 289, 408, 79 K.., 
363. 6, 596. 3, 604. 2, 617. 1, 621. 2, 692. 2. 
322. KX., there is a series of such negations (cf. Kuhner-Gerth, II 2. 
290 e): 
eit’ ovk eixev ov up, ob Aibor, 
ovK ado To.ov’ Erepor. 
97. KX., note the reading proposed by Headlam, JPh. XXIII (1895), 281 
(approved by Herwerden, Collectanea critica, epicritica, exegetica (1903), 
156): 
elul mev aypokos KavTos, ovK aANWS Epa. 
So, in a conditional sentence, the contrast is introduced by un: 
ne lel ov6’ ei dexakts Tonos éoTt, wr yovw 
€uos vlos. 
Similarly wy is used to introduce a wish: 
BH. 348 ws KEVa 
Kal dvadoyifou’ 6 Kaxodaiuwy mpocboxav 
Xapw KouetoPar Tapa yuvatKkos* pr) ovoy 
KaKOV TL TpOTAAGBoLm. 


But often, even when no negative is expressed, the idea of contrast 
doubtless had much to do with the omission of the connective: 


He 2 ov det o ExeLv TA pH O° exiTperréoy Tit 
€oTly TEpl TOUTWY. 
(cf. n. 6), also 
=N > ” \ = t - ' ' 
S. 166 b EXELS TA DaUTHS TAYTA’ TpooTiOnui ou, 
idov, Oeparaivas, ypuat’’ 
although the strong emotion is sufficient warrant for the asyndeton. 


And 8. 235, Pk. 85, G. 28 (a negative in the first member), 66. 3 K, 


*1 evUK Crois., apparently never stoed in the ms. though demanded by sense and 
meter. ; 


104 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Asyndeton in questions was a rhetorical instrument well recognized 
by Menander, as the number of the instances cited in preceding sections 
has shown. But the emotional and rhetorical effect of interrogative 
sentences is especially strong when several are joined together in series 
without the use of conjunctions. Such questions usually anticipate no 
answer; the speaker does not pause for an answer, but hurries from one 
phase of the subject to another, presenting in questions the several prob- 
lems which are to be considered and solved. 

Such a series may be used in a monologue in which the excited speaker 
discusses his own immediate course of action: 


E. 36 dredoyrCounv’ Euol 
Ti TaooTpodias Kal Kakwv; Tobey 6° eya 
ToTaUT avadwow; Ti PpovTidwy Euol; 
E. 484 Kal Tot TpaTwuat y’; els TL Bovdns; 
©: 220 @ Tada’ eyw, TL dpacw; Tot Pryw; 
And Pk. 399, J. 118. 
Charisius reproaches himself through the mouth of his éacudveor 
E. 493 meyada duoas kal NaXeis; 
akOUVGLOV YyuvaLkds aTUXNM’ Ov Hepes; 
Then again, some one else may be encouraged: 
H. 40 Ti ovv; ov TL 
TPATTELS UTEP TAUTOU; 
Or the questions may be spoken in surprise: 
E. 8 MiKpov ay oxXoNGacaLs uty xpovor; 
(Sm2.)  byiv; rept rivos; 
S. 194 ® “Hpaxdeus. 
tis; Anuéas; 
And: $.41, 237, Pkel26i.J. Are 


In other instances, the tone being more deliberate, a series of pointed 
questions suggest rapidly the details of an argument, description, or 
narration. 


K). 50 ff. Neve, Tlv’ Elpyatou TExvnV; 
TOUTO Y amOKpLat, TOHEV ExELs TAUT’; OVK ATrEL 
€x THOSE YS ETEPWOE; Ti OLOdTKELS KAKA; 

TL AvotTENELY NULY aTOmalvels TAOLKELY; 


ASYNDETON 105 
Pk. 234f. dbvacae tr’ avaBaiverv, repixabnobar. mot orpeper, 
NakaoTpe ; noxvvOns; weder TOUTWY Ti cot; 
And especially a series of indirect questions: 


Pk. 106 TOV ONWY KATATKOTOS 
Tpayuatwv yevov, Ti moet, mov 'oTLW  UNTNpP, Eve 
els TO TpocddoKay ExXOVOL TWS* 


In all these cases, especially where the emotion is notable, anaphora 
combined with the asyndeton is a common phenomenon: 


BK. 225 Tos av ovv, Tpos TAY Hew, 





Tas av, tKeTEve) — 


f A \ la A A ew , e 
H. 4f. Ti yap ov KomTets THY KehadHY OVTW TUKVA; 
TL Tas Tpixas TiddELS ELOTAS; TL OTEVELS; 
S. 109 Tot ov, Tot, wacTLyia; 
Seo Ee: ei TuvOavouar Tooas TpaTéCas meAdNETE 


TOELW, TOTAL YUVALKES EloL, THViKA 

€oTat TO O€iTVOV, El dEnoer TPOTAAaPELY 
r ’ r I > pins 

TpaTEeCoTroLoy, El KEpapos eat’ Evdobev 


bu ikavos, el TovrTavioy KaTaoTEYor, 





el TAN’ Urapxe TavTa 
And 8. 112, 225, 226, G. 85. 
Pk. 240 un Boa’ 


tis €00’ 6 dots; 
The asyndeton is only apparent, since the injunction is parenthetic. 
The asyndetic use of participles requires just a word (cf. Kithner- 
Gerth, II 2. 103 f. with bibl.): It must be remembered that many such 
instances are only apparent.” This apparent use is perhaps most frequent 
where of two apparently codrdinated participles one agrees with the sub- 
ject and the other is complementary to the predicate. So with the verb 


TUYXQVW: 


S. 14 KavTOS OLdovs TOUTWY TL Kal dUANAUBaYwY 
els TO Tapleloyv ETVXOV EivENIwv, 


2 Only the hasty or careless reader confuses these cases with cases of real 
asyndeton. I cite them for the sake of comprehensive discussion rather than 
because of any inherent difficulty. 


106 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


Pk. 34 aro Tavtouatou 6° odbeic’ ir’ abrov Opacuréepou, 
WOTEP TpoElpnK’, OVTOS, EmtpEdws T’ Gael 
porTwvros eri THY Oikiay, Ervx’ éomepas 
TeuTovea To Geparavay’ 


Or with verbs that imply continuance in a state: 


S. 284 add’ aropbapeis 
’ ~ ' ” > ‘\ ’ , 
€K TNS TOMEWS ay ExTOdwY eis Baxtpa Trot 


7 Kapiav 6rérpuBov aixuacwr Exel. 


Pk. 291 GAN’ eis oiKov ENaY ExrrodwV 


evTavba KATEKELLNY TUVETTHKWS TAVU. 


Pk. 219 Kabevd’ areNwv, @ maKaple, TAS MaXas 


TaUTas €aoas, 


Or the participle may give the means or describe the details of the action 
of the verb: 


K. 210 un pe 6n dcaddayeis 
Tpos THV yuvatka TOV dpacavTa TavTa Kal 
auveooT adavion NaBwr. 


S. 5 VITEPET TOVOAKWS 
= r I ~ , ~ 
Ta TOU Yamou TpaTTELY, Ppacas TO TPAYL’ aTAaS 

Tots évdov exedevo. 


And perhaps 


| Det yas é€ ot wafovtes Tavta Ta Kab’ adrovs cadas 
éyevovto Baodels of TOT’ SvTES aloXoL. 


And 354 K. éxTeOpapmevos 
ovk €& UTapXOVTWY, Opwv NaxLVETO 
TOV TaTepa mikp ExovTa’ 


In other cases the asyndeton is only apparent because of a logical sub- 
ordination of one of the participles to the other. So perhaps in Agnoia’s 
remarkable monologue, 


S. 26 idovoa 6€ 

TO TaLolov KEKpayos NMEANMEVOV 

éue 7 ovdev eidvi’ Evdov byt’, ev aapadet 

€ivat vouioaca Tov AadeEly, TpOTEPXETAL 
idovoa is circumstantial (temporal), eiévt’ is causal, vouicaca, though 
causal, is more closely connected with the verb. 


ASYNDETON 107 


EK. 287 ris oldev el Kal, ToUTOV evexupov AaBav 
TOTE TLS Tap avToU THY TapoYTwY, aTeBadeV 
ETEpos KUBEvWY ; 


The correct interpretation was given by Croiset (cf. his trans., Capps 


ad l.): 


“‘kuBevwy (which he rightly takes with what precedes) domine toute la pro- 
position et particuliérement le premier participe \aBwy, mais non le verbe prin- 
cipal amweBadev.”’ 


Piety fi. ppacer, mpovoovpevn TL THY aVOpwTivwr, 
el tote denfein Bonfeias Tivos, 
~ ~ » ’ ’ ~ t 
Op@oa TOUTOY OVT avayKatoy povov 
avtTn mudrakny TE NapPavovoa, uy TOTE 
as , » ~ t 
du eue te THY “Ayvorav avtots cuuTeon 
axovavov, mAoUTOUVTa Kal pEOvOVT’ aeEl 
t ~ oD ~ 
Op@a’ exeivov, KTX. 


The passage was correctly interpreted by Lefebvre: 


“les deux participes mpovooupevn et AauBavovoa (pvdAaxnv) sont explicatifs de 
la phrase Tov ayvoobwevov . . . pate, et chacun d’eux a sous sa dépen- 
dance respective, 6p@aa, du vers 19 et dpwoa du vers 23.”’ 


And G. 65, ef. Dziatzko, RhMus. LIV (1899), 500, ad G. 14. 
Sometimes these two forms of apparent asyndeton may be combined 
in a single passage: 


Ee 34 fi. Ta VOMLMLA ToLnoas Tpos Nuas EvOadeE 
éEMav ayayav Te THY adEAPHY ErLmevEL 
TO Xpeos atrepyaCouevos. 


rounoas, temporal, is logically subordinate to the two participles that 
follow, while arepyatéuevos is a circumstantial participle with ém.péver, 
a verb of continuance. 


From this last class of apparent asyndeton due to logical subordina- 
tion, must be distinguished the instances of real asyndeton, in which for 
the sake of rapidity and vividness a series of details are given by parti- 
ciples without the use of conjunctions. The following perhaps are exam- 
ples of this: 


H. 22 Trouunv yap nv TiBevos okay évOadl 
IIreX€aor, yeyovws oikérns veos wy TOTE. 


108 STUDIES IN MENANDER 


E. 80 deduevos, ikeTEVWY EYW 
éXaBov rap’ a’rov tour’. 


7 6 rt sD) 2 ' < r , ft 
Be 271 £. eit eLarivys KAadovta TpooTpEXEL MOV, 
, Jin Te 2 \ , \ , 
TiAXovg ~E€auTNS Tas Tplxas, KaNOV TaVvU 
kal NerTOV, @ Deol, TapavTivoy oPddpa 
ATOAWAEKUL , 


The third participle is subordinate to the preceding as the tense shows. 
And Pk. 3, 7, 9, Kl. 85, 8. 24 (ef. Capps). 

In this connection mention must be made of one passage in which a 
participle is very strangely joined to that which precedes. 


t ce 
K. 301 onow,  TavporoXto.s, tapbévos 
’ > A ’ 
ér ovoa,”’ Ta T exelvn yevoueva avr’ ea 
TOOUMEV * 


It will be noticed that the conjunction ze joins two participles which 
are not parallel, otca modifying the subject of some such verb as é\aGov 
which is to be supplied as a part of Habrotonon’s hypothetical reply; 
while zoovyéevn modifies the subject of ¢jow. If there were any doubt 
as to the reading of the manuscript, one might prefer Croiset’s emenda- 
tion 
djow, ‘Tavporonlos, tapbévos 
ér’ ovo’,”’ & TOT’ Exeivn yeyover, AmavT’ eua 
TOOUMEV * 


which certainly has the advantage of regularity of construction. As a 
defense for the present reading, it may be urged that in this entire con- 
text Habrotonon’s self-quoted remarks are very loosely and irregularly 
interwoven with her other remarks. Furthermore, the concluding par- 
ticiple gives to the sentence almost the tone of an and-so-forth construc- 
tion. 

We have seen enough to amply justify the first contention that Me- 
nander uses practically every form of asyndeton which is recognized by 
grammarians. We have noted the multiplicity of logical and rhetorical 
relations that Menander was able to express by the use of this figure. 
We must not lose ourselves in these details. The use of asyndeton was 
not due to the poverty of the Greek language. Scarcely any language 
is more richly supplied with particles, conjunctions, and other connec- 
tives that serve as the links of discourse and express the relations of cause, 
effect, sequence, and so on. Neither was Menander driven to the use 


ASYNDETON 109 


of asyndeton by the demands of his verse. On occasion, he, like every 
verse-maker, must have found the figure convenient; but the frequency 
of its adoption, especially in long consecutive passages, shows that other 
and larger motives weighed with him. 

The ancient rhetorical writers understood the very definite rhetorical 
effects of asyndeton. According to the evidence cited by Bromig, ‘‘ De 
asyndeti natura et apud Aeschylum usu, Miimster (1879), 6 ff., they 
noted especially the following: Asyndeton imparts liveliness and rapid- 
ity to narration and description. It indicates the passion and excitement 
of the speaker. It is adapted to the orator’s use, because it may add ele- 
vation or dignity to his style, or enable him briefly and emphatically to 
sum up his argument. All of these will be found illustrated in Menan- 
der’s comedies. The large proportion of the instances of asyndeton are 
in the longer narratives and descriptions, where its use gives life to the 
language and the color of every-day speech. Examples of its use in 
emotional scenes or in oratorical passages need not be here repeated. 

But ‘“‘ Demetrius Phalereus,’’ quoted at the beginning of this chapter, 
recognized correctly, as the newly discovered fragments show, dramatic 
vividness as the important reason for Menander’s preference for the so- 
called disjointed style. The poet used asyndeton so freely in order that 
as a playwright he might enliven his verse and make it more appro- 
priate to the dramatic action. We would realize this more clearly if 
once again we might see the comedies of Menander acted upon the 
stage.” 


*8 So Korte, BSG. LX (1908), 155, in discussing the beginning of the Leipzig 
fragment. 






Bek ct Parner a age! in Oe + 








+5 wuretia eS eN es Pe ae 


: 7 bua’ (ie Ay ok 
on. er a le bye: ae aye Oy. bill | ie i 
7 . 


ne . : eh S ives ie oS ; - ni " PS a 
ze | seni; os Natert Stile Rey 
« He) a ; f be : ~ Sstinokiy 
y sad : >» ‘~ > = ai ke IS 
; ¥ ¢ La a . of a ’ ‘ 






4 ; ue 


* 
_ 
; - 
- ; 7 art 
” tied £ 
I 4 ‘< 
nae s } i tsa 
wk <hr Fi 2 
» 
$ * eo? 
: =. ‘ See > - 
{ 
el ‘ rae ee pe 
cre ee | ~ - 
J - t, a 
-* woe <2 
: 7 7 2 


v a e weene Stee 
eS La eas —— ‘and 
Oh aa ; 


7 3 
“ TA 
« eos 
2 
7 - a “ret ee 
is Mpeg 
{ 
A ee ros ey = qe} 
“ at oe 3 = 
i 
; ' - 
i < * ~ ie 
Say wen gy aes “ .  ae 
3 DT Aer 
a . 
' : 
Bo 
‘ “2 ~ (eens 
= © dersiiirs 
- 
fi 
ne 4 : 
- i 
“ 
fi 
a ; 
, 
aap 
ql 
i 
. 7 1 








"RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
TOmep 202 Main Library 










LOAN PERIOD 1 
HOME USE 






ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 


DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 


LL, lies 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 


FORM NO. DD6, BERKELEY, CA 94720 = 
$s 





oy 
, 


oe 
By 


ae 


yt 


5 
PD 


ASS 





